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 all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
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

Succession Law Question

  • 09-05-2008 2:42pm
    #1
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭


    Just a hypothetical situation because it is easier to phrase it as such rather than in the abstract:

    X has 2 children A & B.
    X devises his will, all his assets, in equal share to A & B.

    A predeceases X but A has 2 children of his own.

    Therefore under s98 of the Succession Act the gift to A would survive for the benefit of his estate.

    However, if A also died intestate... would his share go directly to his 2 children or would it follow the rules of intestacy, therefore if there was a spouse of A 1/3 would go to the children and 2/3 to the spouse?


    Apologies for the complicated question, hope it makes sense!


Comments

  • #2
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭johnfás


    Edit:

    The above are very much the facts of a case which answer my question.

    So the answer is that they would follow the laws of intestacy in A's Estate. So her husband would get 2/3 and X's grandchildren (A's children) 1/3 split equally.

    The case is Moorehead v Tiilikainen [1999] 2 ILRM for anyone who is interested.


  • #3
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    I think it's called per stirpes or something like that.


  • #4
    johnfás
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,342 ✭✭✭johnfás


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I think it's called per stirpes or something like that.


    Well I think true per stirpes principles would see the grandchildren inherenting A's full share. That would appear to also be the fairer situation, given that the spouse had little connection to the initial testator. However, it obviously just goes into A's estate and is distributed either by the rules of intestacy or by the terms of her will. I think that is unfair given that had A not had children, s98 would not apply. It is almost like A's spouse piggybacks. However, that appears to be the law!


  • #5
    juke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭juke


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    I think it's called per stirpes or something like that.

    "Per stirpes" here means that the grandchildren step into shoes of the parent ie - they would get all of the father's/mother's inheritance (and the wife nothing). It must be specifically mentioned in a will.

    Presume in op's scenario, because "per stirpes" wasn't mentioned in will, the rules of intestacy apply?

    I think......


Advertisement