Dying without a will

William F

What happens to an oldman's estate if he dies without a will?

Say if his parents are dead and he has no children and the only people surviving him are his brothers and sisters who have some kids.

What will the court do with his estate?

Ken.

Have a read of this http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/the_deceaseds_estate/what_happens_the_deceaseds_estate.html

Intestacy
If a person dies without having made a will or if the will is invalid for whatever reason, that person is said to have died "intestate". If there is a valid will, but part of it is invalid then that part is dealt with as if there was an intestacy. The rules for division of property on intestacy are as follows:

If the deceased is survived by

spouse/civil partner but no children - spouse/civil partner gets entire estate
spouse/civil partner and children - spouse/civil partner gets two-thirds, one-third is divided equally between children (if a child has already died his/her children take a share)
parents, no spouse/civil partner or children - divided equally or entirely to one parent if only one survives.
children, no spouse/civil partner - divided equally between children (as above)
brothers and sisters only - shared equally, the children of a deceased brother or sister take the share
nieces and nephews only - divided equally between those surviving
other relatives - divided equally between nearest equal relationship

William F

What is meant by 'equal shares'.

Does this mean that the beneficiaries become tenants in common or joint tenants?

Ken.

William F wrote: »

What is meant by 'equal shares'.

Does this mean that the beneficiaries become tenants in common or joint tenants?

I take it(so not official) to mean that any large assets like house,car etc will be sold and the money divvy'd up unless one sibling wants to buy out the others.

William F

Ridiculous. Primogeniture would seem like a better solution.

Marcusm

William F wrote: »

Ridiculous. Primogeniture would seem like a better solution.

Male preference or equal? Are you as progressive as the British monarchy?

234

William F wrote: »

Ridiculous. Primogeniture would seem like a better solution.

Hardly. And if the beneficiaries wish they can exercise their Saunders v Vautier rights and have estate transferred to them without being sold. However, considering that in most cases the primary asset is a home, and this is incapable of division then selling up and splitting the cash is the fairest option.

William F

ken wrote: »

Have a read of this http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/the_deceaseds_estate/what_happens_the_deceaseds_estate.html

Intestacy
If a person dies without having made a will or if the will is invalid for whatever reason, that person is said to have died "intestate". If there is a valid will, but part of it is invalid then that part is dealt with as if there was an intestacy. The rules for division of property on intestacy are as follows:

If the deceased is survived by

spouse/civil partner but no children - spouse/civil partner gets entire estate
spouse/civil partner and children - spouse/civil partner gets two-thirds, one-third is divided equally between children (if a child has already died his/her children take a share)
parents, no spouse/civil partner or children - divided equally or entirely to one parent if only one survives.
children, no spouse/civil partner - divided equally between children (as above)
brothers and sisters only - shared equally, the children of a deceased brother or sister take the share
nieces and nephews only - divided equally between those surviving
other relatives - divided equally between nearest equal relationship

So if someone dies intestate who is responsible for initiating proceedings from the example I gave?
Is an agreement between all the beneficiaries necessary before proceedings can go ahead?

Peregrinus

William F wrote: »

So if someone dies intestate who is responsible for initiating proceedings from the example I gave?
Is an agreement between all the beneficiaries necessary before proceedings can go ahead?

The next of kin all have an equal right to take out a grant of representation. In the case in the OP that would be the deceased's brothers and sisters.

While they can all act jointly, this usually isn't convenient, so it will be agreed that (say) one or two of the siblings take out a grant of representation, with the other siblings all consenting to this.

William F

Peregrinus wrote: »

The next of kin all have an equal right to take out a grant of representation. In the case in the OP that would be the deceased's brothers and sisters.

While they can all act jointly, this usually isn't convenient, so it will be agreed that (say) one or two of the siblings take out a grant of representation, with the other siblings all consenting to this.

So consent between the siblings is a definite requirement?

Claw Hammer

William F wrote: »

Ridiculous. Primogeniture would seem like a better solution.

Yes! if you are the eldest son.

Peregrinus

William F wrote: »

So consent between the siblings is a definite requirement?

Not an absolute requirement, but it's a bit of a production to get around it.

If one of the siblings went to Peru 20 years ago, hasn't been heard from and can't be traced, for example, you can apply to court for a grant without his involvement or consent. Or if one of the siblings has a learning disability, or is in a coma, or something of the kind. You may have to produce a doctor's cert or a medical opinion or something of the kind, but it can be done.

Or if the siblings are fighting and opposing one another's applications for a grant, the whole thing will end up in court and some solution will be imposed. But these cases are (mercifully) rare. And of course the costs of litigating them generally come out of the estate, so if you fight about these things for long enough you won't need to take out a grant - there'll be no assets left to distribute.

mickmac76

ken wrote: »

Have a read of this http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/the_deceaseds_estate/what_happens_the_deceaseds_estate.html

Intestacy
If a person dies without having made a will or if the will is invalid for whatever reason, that person is said to have died "intestate". If there is a valid will, but part of it is invalid then that part is dealt with as if there was an intestacy. The rules for division of property on intestacy are as follows:

If the deceased is survived by

spouse/civil partner but no children - spouse/civil partner gets entire estate
spouse/civil partner and children - spouse/civil partner gets two-thirds, one-third is divided equally between children (if a child has already died his/her children take a share)
parents, no spouse/civil partner or children - divided equally or entirely to one parent if only one survives.
children, no spouse/civil partner - divided equally between children (as above)
brothers and sisters only - shared equally, the children of a deceased brother or sister take the share
nieces and nephews only - divided equally between those surviving
other relatives - divided equally between nearest equal relationship

Hi

Sorry for hijacking this interesting discussion. I'm single and intending to stay that way. Can anyone tell me what would happen if I died without making a will and had parents and brothers/sisters survive me. Would my parents be entitled to the entire estate or would my brothers and sisters also get a share.

Mick.

Peregrinus

Your parents, or the survivor of them, will get your estate. Your brothers and sisters will get nothing unless both your parents die before you do.

William F

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not an absolute requirement, but it's a bit of a production to get around it.

If one of the siblings went to Peru 20 years ago, hasn't been heard from and can't be traced, for example, you can apply to court for a grant without his involvement or consent. Or if one of the siblings has a learning disability, or is in a coma, or something of the kind. You may have to produce a doctor's cert or a medical opinion or something of the kind, but it can be done.

Or if the siblings are fighting and opposing one another's applications for a grant, the whole thing will end up in court and some solution will be imposed. But these cases are (mercifully) rare. And of course the costs of litigating them generally come out of the estate, so if you fight about these things for long enough you won't need to take out a grant - there'll be no assets left to distribute.

Thanks.

I know of an ongoing dispute between brothers and sisters who are contesting their dead brother's estate because he left no will. He died a bachelor.

The siblings can't reach an agreement because he promised to leave the farm to the youngest brother but didn't.

However, the youngest brother has continued to farm the land. The siblings are split over the matter.

Some are happy for the youngest to farm the land and the others aren't.

So it looks as though the youngest will get the farm through adverse possession in time because the two who are happy for him to continue farming the land will not give their consent to the others to take out a grant of representation.

I think this is fair enough but I think a system like this could be open to abuse.