Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Contesting a Will

  • 23-02-2015 12:04pm
    #1
    Right Turn Clyde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭


    If I am the sole beneficiary of a will, and someone successful contests that will, can I be completely shut out and receive nothing? Or will it simply be a case of the Court deciding what percentage goes to which party? And if it is a case of percentages, does the Court tend to grant a larger amount to the original beneficiary, or is it all on a case by case basis. Please note that I am not looking for specific legal advice. I just want to know whether there are set principles that are applied in that situation. Thanks.


Comments

  • #2
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    If a will is held to be invalid then it goes on intestacy. A court only really interferes on S 117 where a testator has not made proper provision for a child and has failed in their moral duty to provide for them.

    That or if there is undue influence or fraud.


  • #3
    Right Turn Clyde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Right Turn Clyde


    Mr. Incognito wrote: »
    If a will is held to be invalid then it goes on intestacy. A court only really interferes on S 117 where a testator has not made proper provision for a child and has failed in their moral duty to provide for them.

    That or if there is undue influence or fraud.

    Yes it's S117 that I'm interested in. If the court decides that the child has not been provided for, can it give 100% of the testator's estate to the child. That doesn't sound right though. Surely the testator's wishes have to be at least partly respected?


  • #4
    P. Breathnach
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,089 ✭✭✭✭P. Breathnach


    Right Turn Clyde wrote: »
    Yes it's S117 that I'm interested in. If the court decides that the child has not been provided for, can it give 100% of the testator's estate to the child. That doesn't sound right though. Surely the testator's wishes have to be at least partly respected?
    The wording of the section is clear enough:
    the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.


  • #5
    Right Turn Clyde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Right Turn Clyde


    P. Breathnach wrote: »
    The wording of the section is clear enough:

    So could a Court think it just to award the entire estate to the contesting party?


  • #6
    234
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    Right Turn Clyde wrote: »
    So could a Court think it just to award the entire estate to the contesting party?

    That's a question that calls for a value judgment. Only a judge in possession of the facts of the case can answer it. It's not possible to answer in the abstract.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Right Turn Clyde
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,487 ✭✭✭Right Turn Clyde


    234 wrote: »
    That's a question that calls for a value judgment. Only a judge in possession of the facts of the case can answer it. It's not possible to answer in the abstract.

    That's what I wanted to know. Thanks, and thanks to everyone else for your help.


Advertisement