Inheritance and nanny

[davefreer]

I was interested to see a UK law commission has produced a position paper on what they see as potential law-changes with regard to inheritance and people who die intestate. They're proposing that marriage no longer be pre-requisite for someone to inherit the estate. If you've been together for two years the surviving partner gets half the estate,

Comments

[davefreer]

You could as easily make Edna Joe's sister. Yep it would be perjury - and impossible to prove and therefore quite likely. The spinster sister thing still seems entirely ridiculous to me - 1)Even if they were engaged in sex what possible harm would it do - not like they'll have babies. 2)A co-habiting relationship does not presume sex anyway. Incest rules exist for a genetic reason (and not actually that good a reason). I can't say it appeals to me, but it strikes me in cases like this as being as logical as hanging for homosexuality. Co-habiting does presume interdepence - which accurately describes such a relationship.

Such a 'good thing' is merely designed to protect the stupid, the ignorant, the uncommited (in which case why should the other half enjoy the benefits of commitment just because the partner is dead), and those who lack forethought and consideration. Give me a good selective (to the advange of society/the species in future) reason why society should shape rules to make it beneficial to be all or any of these things? The law should be structured _not_ to make things easier for for members of society who - for example - provide a less stable environment for new citizens to grow into good citizens, but to make things cheaper better and easier for those who do formalise* arrangements

(Yes, we have wills. And we're married. I'm arguing for the sake of it) ;-)

*which also implies being very tolerant about the form of formality chosen. ie if Edwin and Hugh - brothers sharing a house - effectively interdependent want the other to continue to occupy the 'family' home after the death of either, they should be allowed to sign up as 'co-habiting' whether they are are or are not having sex.

[reverancepavane]

A co-habiting relationship does not presume sex anyway.
This is your fundamental mistake. You're using the English meaning of the word, rather than the legal definition, which pre-supposes the direct opposite (or at least, the potential for it). The important words here are "as man and wife" or "as civil partners," both of which have their own definitions under law.
And as I said, it seems to have been recommended to deal with people's misconception about the idea of there being such a thing as common law spouse, which an advertising campaign completely failed to do. In the majority of cases that it will apply to it obliviates the need to dispute the probate (under the existing family provisions part of the act). As it is, as the law stands, if Fred still wished to commit perjury he could still challenge the probate under this provision, claiming a right to the estate on those grounds.
It's also why the proposed changes are only going to be valid in England and Wales. Scotland has a different method of dealing with inheritance, which is heavily focused on blood kinship ties [I believe].
You're married!?! Never realised. My advice was actually for those other listeners out in LJ land.
Unfortunately I'd actually have to try and find the Family Provision Act for the UK to properly answer your question [I'm not a lawyer "and it's not my damn country, monkey-boy"]. But for example, in NSW, the Succession Amendment (Family Provision) Act 2008 considers a person with whom the deceased person was living in a close personal relationship at the time of the deceased
person’s death to be eligible under the provisions [this is expressly different from a defacto relationship, which is covered earlier in the Act]. Which seems to cover poor Hugh. But then, I'm not a lawyer and you are getting into some serious hypothetical cases.