Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2017 March 12

= March 12 =

Inheritance in various legal systems:
In most of legal systems, a person can inherit from another person dying intestate - because they both have (dead) common parents, or common grandparents (and likewise).

Is there any legal system in which: a person can inherit from another person dying intestate - even without them being relatives (or spouses) - but rather because they both have a (dead) common child? Or a (dead) common half-sibling? Or a (dead) common half-cousin (and likewise)? HOTmag (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In California: "Except as provided in Section 6451, relatives of the halfblood inherit the same share they would inherit if they were of the whole blood." Also it looks like adoptive and foster parent relationships count for intestate inheritance, under certain conditions. (Link to all of Part 2 of the California Probate Code.) --47.138.163.230 (talk) 22:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect this law discusses half-kinship (including legal kinship created by adoption), whereas my question is about two persons who are by no means relatives - nor are they half-relatives (nor are they spouses), even though they both have a common offspring or a common half-relative (e.g. a common half-sibling and likewise).
 * The law states: "relatives of the halfblood inherit the same share they would inherit if they were of the whole blood ". As I understand, this law states that a person can inherit from their half-sibling (and likewise). However, this law says nothing about whether John can inherit from Sandra, who is neither John's sister nor John's half-sister, but rather both John and Sandra have a common son or a common half-brother - Peter - who had passed away many years before Sandra died intestate and bequeathed. That's what my question is about. HOTmag (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Under the Inheritance (Family Provision and Dependants) Act 1975, if Sandra was financially dependent on John at the time of his death she can lodge a claim against his estate.  It is irrelevant whether their son is alive or dead.   This works the other way if Sandra was maintaining John when she died. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it relevant whether they have a common offspring? HOTmag (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.  The Act is perfectly general in its scope.   A daughter who had been cut out of her father's will might claim against his estate if she was financially dependent on him.   The Act operates equally well in the case of intestacy. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So, it doesn't matter whether or not John and Sandra (who have no kinship nor half kinship) have a common offspring at all, and whether or not they have a common half-relative at all. The relevant point is the dependence, so I don't see how this law has anything to do with my original question. HOTmag (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * By law, in this country parents cannot be closer than first cousins.  Since they had at least one child together they might well be married or divorced or simply have lived as cohabitees.   Any of these scenarios gives John a possible claim against Sandra's estate. 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Please notice that having lived together as cohabitees (or as spouses) has nothing to do with having a common child, i.e. they may live together as cohabitees (or as spouses) without having a common child, and also vice versa: they may have a common child without having lived as cohabitees (nor as spouses), so again I don't see how this law has anything to do with my original question. HOTmag (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, let's say that John and Sandra have Robert, who emigrates to Australia at the age of 16.  Forty years later he dies.   Ten years later Sandra dies.   I can't imagine any mechanism by which the fact of Robert having died in Australia would create a right for John to benefit from Sandra's estate.   Would it be under British law or Australian law, and why would any legal system make such a provision anyway? 80.5.88.48 (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact of Robert having died, may be necessary in a given legal system, because maybe (under that legal system) - if Robert is still alive - then Sandra (who has just died intestate) bequeaths to her son Robert rather than to his father John. That's why I'd added the provision of Robert's death. However, I don't insist on Robert's death, which may be unnecessary if - under that legal system - Sandra (who has just died intestate) can bequeath both to her son Robert and to his father John (provided that both of then are alive). Anyways, I still wonder if there is such a legal system, while Sandra and John (who is her son's father) are neither relatives, nor half-relatives, nor spouses, nor have they lived as cohabitees. That's what my question is about. HOTmag (talk) 11:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this is your question of Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2016 January 26 in a slightly different form.  It all depends on the law of intestacy.   You may find this previous answer helpful:

You can establish the position in the English legal system from the following previous answer. What you are asking is if any legal system gives preference to issue of the whole blood over issue of the half blood. If the English rules are typical (and I would guess they are) the answer will be "no".


 * No, I'm not asking if "any legal system gives preference to issue of the whole blood over issue of the half blood ". My question is about two persons who are by no means relatives - nor are they half-relatives (nor are they spouses), even though they both have a common offspring or a common half-relative (e.g. a common half-sibling and likewise). HOTmag (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * If I had a nickel for every time I've asked a strange question and got (over and over) replies to a very different question . . . . —Tamfang (talk) 08:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange question? Let me disagree. HOTmag (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In English law, certainly, if there is no will (the grandparent died intestate) the grandchildren might inherit. Under the rules, a divorced spouse gets nothing. If there are surviving children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren of the person who died and the estate is valued at more than 250,000 pounds the partner will inherit:


 * all the personal property and belongings of the person who has died, and
 * the first 250,000 pounds of the estate, and
 * half of the remaining estate.

If there are no surviving children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren, the partner will inherit


 * all the personal property and belongings of the person who has died and
 * the whole of the estate with interest from the date of death.

Children of the intestate person will inherit if there is no surviving married or civil partner. If there is a surviving partner, they will only inherit if the estate is worth more than a certain amount.

If there is no surviving partner, the children of a person who has died without leaving a will inherit the whole estate. This applies however much the estate is worth.

If there are two or more children, the estate will be divided equally between them.

If there is a surviving partner, a child only inherits from the estate if the estate is valued at over 250,000 pounds. If there are two or more children, the children will inherit in equal shares:


 * one half of the value of the estate above 250,000 pounds.

All the children of the parent who has died intestate inherit equally from the estate. This also applies where a parent has children from different relationships.

A child whose parents are not married or have not registered a civil partnership (see earlier discussion regarding children of civil partners) can inherit from the estate of a parent who dies intestate. These children can also inherit from grandparents or great - grandparents who have died intestate.

If you follow the BBC series "Heir Hunters" you will know a lot about these rules, and also that the situation in Scotland is different. Under the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964 there is no generational cutoff.

In England, a grandchild or great - grandchild cannot inherit from the estate of an intestate person unless either:


 * their parent or grandparent has died before the intestate person, or
 * their parent is alive when the intestate person dies but dies before reaching the age of 18 without having married or formed a civil partnership

In these circumstances, the grandchildren and great - grandchildren will inherit equal shares of the share to which their parent or grandparent would have been entitled.

Parents, brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of the intestate person may inherit under the rules of intestacy. This will depend on a number of circumstances:


 * whether there is a surviving married or civil partner
 * whether there are children, grandchildren or great - grandchildren
 * in the case of nephews and nieces, whether the parent directly related to the person who has died is also dead
 * the amount of the estate.

Other relatives may have a right to inherit if the person who died intestate had no surviving married partner or civil partner, children, grandchildren, great - grandchildren, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. The order of priority amongst other relatives is as follows:


 * grandparents
 * uncles and aunts.  A cousin can inherit instead if the uncle or aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person
 * half - uncles and half - aunts.  A half - cousin can inherit instead if the half - uncle or half - aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person.

You cannot generalise that grandchildren will inherit if there is a will. It depends on the terms of the will." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.147.143.29 (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.24.95 (talk)
 * I once inherited about £200 from a cousin of my father, who I'd never heard of (my father having died nearly 20 years earlier). As I recall, one-third of the estate was being divided between my fathers' family (Dad was one of nine siblings) and I got half of Dads' share. It was an unexpected windfall. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So the whole original estate (before being divided) must have been £10,800 (Btw, not: fathers', Dads', but rather: father's, Dad's). HOTmag (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Arwel's been the unwitting victim of a falling wind, and you wan't to talk Postrophes? μηδείς (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)