Who may inherit?

Question 1

Grosvenor’s Tr and Gillespie Macandrew (Trustees) Ltd, Petrs

Answer 1

1. This was an intestate succession case turning on whether the deceased’s second husband, who went by numerous names and who had fallen out of contact, should be thought deceased
2. The executors wanted to know if this surviving spouse was still in existence, as this would affect the children’s entitlement
3. The second husband happened to be alive, so the estate was to be divided as if there was a surviving spouse
4. It is important to track down family members as who is alive affects everybody else’s entitlement as well
5. Sometimes children unknown to the rest of the family appear (like love children)

Question 2

Lamb v Lamb

Answer 2

1. John Grant and Agnes Grant both died in a fire
2. JG left all of his estate to AG in a will
3. JG had no other family
4. AG had a sister (the pursuer) who was AG’s heir
5. The pursuer needed to show that AG died after JG to inherit the estate
6. The court emphasised the point that if there is evidence about who died first, that is all that is needed
7. The court decided that it was clear that JG had died first and AG survived him
8. So, AG’s estate would take the benefit of JG’s estate which meant that the sister could take the benefit of what was in AG’s estate

Question 3

Burns v Secretary of State for Scotland

Answer 3

1. A widow was denied a claim which she made for a type of pension because she had been convicted of the culpable homicide of her husband
2. The widow had been subjected to a long course of abuse
3. On the day of the stabbing, there was clear evidence that she had lost reason but not enough to not be criminally responsible
4. The widow had been sentenced to two years probation (which shows the leniency of the criminal court)
5. This civil case caused quite a lot of outrage
6. Under civil law, she was unable to inherit
7. The exception to the unworthy heir rule, as per section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982, was applied
8. The court can award a percentage of or all of the estate

Question 4

Tannock v Tannock

Answer 4

1. The deceased had been killed by his wife
2. There was evidence of abuse in the marriage
3. The son of the widow (who had killed the deceased) had removed the knife from the body
4. He was convicted of the crime of defeating the ends of justice
5. The deceased was already dead, so he did not kill him, but he was still convicted of another crime
6. The court held that the rule did not apply to this situation and that it was restricted to unlawful killing only
7. The son could inherit under provision of the will

Question 5

Paterson Petr

Answer 5

1. The petitioner had been subject to 30 years of domestic violence
2. The deceased returned home drunk and started to attack the petitioner
3. She got a knife to scare him and accidentally stabbed him, which caused his death
4. The court held that modification was entirely appropriate

Question 6

Cross Petr

Answer 6

1. A son had killed his father
2. There was history of an abusive relationship
3. The son was convicted of culpable homicide and was imprisoned for 18 months
4. In the civil law case, the judge determined that the deceased’s actions had been so apprehensible that he was going to modify the rule
5. The judge let the son have 99% of the estate