Inheritance law needs changing
Saturday 14th February 2009, 9:58AM GMT.
From J Apostolides.
I have recently come across a situation which cries out for a law change and which I imagine would be of concern to many people in Jersey.
The bare facts, as I understand them, are that a man and his partner of 25 years brought up a family and built a business. He died suddenly and, as he was only 60, unexpectedly. In such circumstances, where a man and his partner were not married, his automatic beneficiaries in law in Jersey are apparently his siblings — brothers and sisters — not his partner and their children, who stand to receive nothing, not even the house they have lived in as a family for many years.
When these inheritance provisions were introduced they no doubt reflected the realities and requirements of an agrarian society. There are also, of course, different circumstances if legal steps are taken to improve the rights of deserving beneficiaries. However, legal arrangements do not always receive the priority they deserve.
Developed countries modify their laws to reflect modern realities — and partners are just that, whether or not bound by a ceremony. As a stark example, ‘palimony’ divorce settlements come to mind! The human rights movement no doubt addresses such a situation, and I can imagine that the people of Jersey would have no issue with adopting fair inheritance provisions.
My concern is that this family and no doubt many others out there will not see changes in time and will have to revert to expensive legal efforts to try to win their due inheritances at a time when legal disputes are the last things they want to deal with.
In our modern world we should not have to take special precautions to protect our wishes and natural rights but have confidence that the basic laws of the land are fair and appropriate. In the above case, the man presumed that his partner and children were his natural beneficiaries. Who would expect otherwise?
I would like to hear from anyone who has experienced such circumstances and is willing to share them.
Le Mistral,
Mont Cochon,
St Helier.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
The simple solution is to marry the person not hang around for 25 years without any legal position.
Report abuse
Make a will – apart from property which is a bit more complicated, you can leave your money and other possessions to anyone.
You could of course transfer the title to a property into joint names.
There are quite a few things you can do to protect your family and to leave this until age 60 is not very kind to your dependants.
Report abuse
Totally agree – I have been living with my partner for 5 years and as we weren’t married we drew up a legal document saying that if anything should happen to the other then they get 75% of our assets with our parents getting 25%
It’s simple to do and if you care about someone then you think about every eventuality.
Report abuse
However in this case as he didn’t make provisions the best course of action would be to talk to his syblings and try to get it settled out of court.
Report abuse
Just because they did not marry does not change the fact that they were a couple in every sense of the way, had two children together and now because of out-dated laws siblings are entitled to claim from the deceased estate. In today’s world more and more couples are choosing not to marry but it beggars belief that at a time when his widow and children need support they are being dragged through the courts to defend their right to live in their own home.
Report abuse
Holly, it’s not that simple.
While this situation is very sad for those involved, the laws are there to prevent abuse. There are cases where people who simply cohabited for decades (i.e. weren’t in a relationship) have then claimed in court that they were, just to lay claim to an inheritance that wasn’t theirs. Were the law changed (as suggested) the co-habitant could lay such a claim as it would be hard for anyone else to prove that the two people living together were or were not in a relationship. This is why there are defined statuses (like marriage) that come with specific legal rights.
Nobody is debating that the people mentioned in the letter were not a couple, but they were a couple where the man (in the eyes of the law) chose to not have his partner be the one to inherit. Also, the kids are clearly not legally his children or they would be the ones to inherit (above anyone else). It’s that simple.
People choosing not to marry but wanting the same rights as it brings are being childish. Now you have people not wanting to get married but have a civil partnership instead. People need to get some common sense. There is nothing ‘bad’ about marriage itself, it is not a physical entity and so it cannot make or break a relationship, only people make relationships work or fail and blaming ‘marriage’ is just another copout.
Choosing to marry is simply choosing to have the legal status that it brings with it. Choosing to not marry means you are choosing to not have that status. Give it 10 years of Civil Partnerships breaking down and we will have a new generation of people that don’t want to have a civil partnership because that will be the cause of the relationship failure (not the people in the relationship!)… but of course, they’ll still want the legal rights that it brings.
The government are not mindreaders. You have to make it clear who you want to inherit and you do that either by making a will or by entering marriage or a civil parrtnership. It’s quite easy, and if people don’t do it they only have themselves to blame.
Report abuse
Holly – if you decide not to marry you should decide to look after those closest to you by writing a will – im 22 and have one i don’t see how anyone can get to 60 and not write one out – especially if he wasn’t married!
Report abuse
Lula, utter kudos to you, always nice to see common sense.
Report abuse
Lula, feel very sorry for you and your views and being only 22 with a will in place and such strong opinions.. Lets hope your life begins at 40!! In this day and age being empathetic and some life experience gets you a bit further my love someone once said to me, be careful how you treat people on the way up, you never know who you are going to meet on the way down.. take heed.
Report abuse
I take on board what you said and even if his partner is unable to inherit why can’t his children? The children in question are the deceased’s and his partners natural children the reason they don’t automatically inherit is because of the outdated law. They can leagally inherit from their mother but are not recognised in law when it comes to their own father. I would also like to add the deceased did make his intentions known but his wishes are being contested.
Report abuse
We’re in a society where the level of common sense shown by Lula is patronised rather than applauded? Seriously worrying. Lula will get farther in life than many of her peers because of her obvious sense.
Neither common sense nor life experience are connected just to age. At 22 I had dealt with numerous situations that people 30+ hope never to encounter even one of. Also, Lula has shown far more common sense than some people decades older.
The problem with this letter and some nasty comments that were made (now removed thankfully) is that none of us know what goes on in someone else’s relationship (whatever we might think we know). There are men/women who intentionally disinherit their spouses or refuse to marry a partner for all sorts of valid reasons. Often the partner will not be aware of this until they are bereaved.
The law is not only bang up to date (still), it is exactly as it should be and protects people from potentially being taken advantage of even after their death.
For the specific relationship mentioned in the letter we must trust that the man made his decision based on what he knew of his own relationship (he being one of only two people that know what their relationship was). It is not our right to question that decision. At 60 it is very likely that he knew of the need to make specific provisions for a non-spouse to become his inheritor.
So in response to Holly, every comment made about the woman, her children, the house etc (although wishful and well-meaning) is completely void of any legal status. This may be classed as ‘unempathetic’ but it is a necessary distinction to make if we want to stop this very tragic situation happening to someone else in the future. If you refuse to accept the distinction then it could happen to you also. No-one should ever have to suffer as this lady may be, especially when the situation is totally avoidable given a little bit of time and a tiny amount of money.
Report abuse