Has there ever been a case of inheritance where time of death was contested

Donald Trump

I don't know why this came into my head but has there ever been a case where time of death mattered for inheritance.


When does property pass from one owner to the other? Suppose there is a married couple, Pat and Mary. They have no children and own everything jointly. I think that I am correct that if one dies, the other automatically inherits everything?



Suppose Pat has a will that says "If Mary predeceases me, I leave everything to my cousin Mick" and Mary has a will that says "If Pat predeceases me, I leave everything to my cousin Ann".


Now if Pat dies, and the next day Mary dies, I assume that "Ann" gets everything. Even though the assets have not been transferred or claimed by Mary before she died.

But has there every been a case where say both Pat and Ann die in some accident but there is a legal wrangling over time of death on whether Mick or Ann gets the inheritance? I'm sure it must happen? Although maybe my scenario is not possible due to the way things get set up.

thomasdylan

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2019/aug/13/stepsister-legal-which-parent-died-first

Peregrinus

The Guardian report refers to an English case.

The law in Ireland is different. Succcession Act 1965, s. 5:

"Where . . .two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, then, for the purposes of the distribution of the estate of any of them, they shall all be deemed to have died simultaneously."

So, in my will I leave property to X, if he survives me. X and I die in circumstances where it is not possible to know if he surived me. We are deemed to have died simultaneously; therefore he did not survive me; therefore the bequest to him does not take effect.

Victor

Some wills also say if X dies within Y days of me dying, then their inheritance doesn't go to them and goes to Z instead.

Quantum Erasure

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Guardian report refers to an English case...

interesting, all the same. I enjoy reading these quirks of law.

Donald Trump

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Guardian report refers to an English case.

The law in Ireland is different. Succcession Act 1965, s. 5:

"Where . . .two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, then, for the purposes of the distribution of the estate of any of them, they shall all be deemed to have died simultaneously."

So, in my will I leave property to X, if he survives me. X and I die in circumstances where it is not possible to know if he surived me. We are deemed to have died simultaneously; therefore he did not survive me; therefore the bequest to him does not take effect.

Well I suppose that still leaves it ambiguous. Suppose in my scenario there is a car accident and both are unconscious but one is pronounced dead 2 mins before the other.



If it genuinely is still uncertain after that, I assume it would be then split between them equally for the purposes of passing it on?

Peregrinus

In your example Pat's will says " "If Mary predeceases me, I leave everything to my cousin Mick".

Because of the operation of s. 5, Mary did not predecease Pat; they died simultaneously. So Pat's estate does not go to Mick.

But nor does it go to Mary. Mary's right of survivorship as a joint owner is conditional on her surviving Pat, and she did not survive Pat.

Pat's will probably doesn't deal with the eventuality that Mary neither predeceases Pat nor survives him, so Pat's half-share of assets jointly owned with Mary will pass under the rules that apply in default of any provision in a will. It will go to his surviving next-of-kin - could be his parents, his brothers and sisters, other family members - whoever is closest, and survives him.

The same analysis applies to Mary.

The wills are badly drafted. Pat's will should have said 'If Mary does not survive me" (or "does not survive my by at least, e.g., 30 days" his property goes to Mick since that, presumably, is what Pat would have wanted in the event of he and Mary dying simultaneously.

Donald Trump

Ok, but even in the case where someone says "does not survive me by 30 days" there would surely be the possibility where the definition of "30 days" comes into force. I mean whereby someone who dies at 23:59pm on 1st Jan and the other person dies on 00:01am on 30th Jan if you know what I mean.

Marcusm

The INterpretation Act comes into play to determine what constitutes a day.

Peregrinus

Donald Trump wrote: »

Ok, but even in the case where someone says "does not survive me by 30 days" there would surely be the possibility where the definition of "30 days" comes into force. I mean whereby someone who dies at 23:59pm on 1st Jan and the other person dies on 00:01am on 30th Jan if you know what I mean.

Happens rarely.

The point of the 30-day clause is this: suppose my spouse and I are in a car accident; I'm killed instantly, pronounced dead at the scene, but she is taken alive to hospital, in a critical condition, dying hours or days later. This isn't uncommon.

In this circumstance I don't want my estate to pass to her, with her possibly never knowing about it, and then going on to her next of kin. I want my estate to pass to her if she's going to need it, or be around to enjoy it, but if she dies a couple of days after me then it's of no benefit to her, and I have no particular feeling for, or moral obligation towards, her brother (say), so I'd much rather in this situation that my estate would go to my sister, not my wife's brother.

The 30 days figure is a fairly rough and ready one; generally if you are going to die as a consequence of the same incident that kills me you will die within the month. And, if you don't - if you linger in a coma, say - that can last for many months or years in which case you do need my estate, to help pay for your care.

Yes, it could happen that you could die almost exactly a month after me, so which way my estate passes could be a very finely-balanced matter. But that will be true no matter what time-limit we pick; someone could always day more or less at the time the limit expires. As Marcusm says, when time limits are mentioned in days, then the courts just count whole days, so the question will come down to whether you die before or after midnight. The actual hour and minute at which I died a month previously is irrelevant.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point of the 30-day clause is this: suppose my spouse and I are in a car accident; I'm killed instantly, pronounced dead at the scene, but she is taken alive to hospital, in a critical condition, dying hours or days later. This isn't uncommon.

In this circumstance I don't want my estate to pass to her, with her possibly never knowing about it, and then going on to her next of kin. I want my estate to pass to her if she's going to need it, or be around to enjoy it, but if she dies a couple of days after me then it's of no benefit to her, and I have no particular feeling for, or moral obligation towards, her brother (say), so I'd much rather in this situation that my estate would go to my sister, not my wife's brother.

I read about a recent case in the UK where time of death was an issue and the newspaper article mentioned that the rules on intestacy over there says that a spouse only inherits (on intestacy) if they survive more than 28 days. Which makes sense in the context of the scenario you outlined.

In Ireland, your wife could survive you by a few hours and if there was no will and no children, her people would get all of your estate.