Latest news with #SuccessionAct
Irish Times
05-07-2025
- Politics
- Irish Times
Is it time to acknowledge the legislative achievements of Charles Haughey?
Approaching the centenary of his birth in September, and 60 years after the passing of the Succession Act in 1965, is it time to give greater credit to the legislative record of Charles Haughey ? As minister for justice from 1961-1964, Haughey, still in his 30s, introduced ground-breaking legislation that would change lives. It included the Criminal Justice Act, 1964, which abolished the death penalty with exceptions retained for killing gardaí, prison officers and diplomats. These exceptions were removed in 1990 when Haughey was taoiseach. He also introduced the Adoption Act, 1964, which built on the 1952 Adoption Act and emphasised the rights of the child and the birth mother. And it was Haughey who introduced the Succession Bill in 1964 before becoming minister for agriculture later that year. His successor as minister for justice, Brian Lenihan snr, saw the Bill through the Oireachtas in 1965. READ MORE The resulting Succession Act entitles a surviving spouse to a portion of the estate of the deceased spouse, whether or not a will exists. If there is no will, the surviving spouse is entitled to the whole estate if there are no children or two-thirds of the estate if there are children while the children receive one-third. Even if there is a will, the surviving spouse is entitled to half the estate if there are no children and one-third if there are children. The Act marked a giant leap forward in family life and law. Before the Succession Act, it was possible for one spouse to exclude the other from benefiting from his estate. For example, a man could leave his farm to a male relative without making any provision for his widow. The old days of cutting the wife off without a shilling or threatening that if she remarried she would have to give up her life tenancy ... that kind of thing is all gone — Pat Lindsay, former TD in his book Memories In seeking a solution to this problem, Haughey was assisted by outstanding civil servants including Roger Hayes and Paddy Terry. They provided invaluable help, which he acknowledged. Another factor that prompted Haughey to introduce the Succession Bill was the large amount of money, sometimes even a farm, being left to the church while widows were neglected. Patrick Hillery, later president of Ireland, had encountered this phenomenon in the course of his medical practice in Co Clare. Pat Lindsay, a lawyer and a Fine Gael Dáil deputy at the time the Act was passed, observed in his book Memories how since the passing of the Act 'the old days of cutting the wife off without a shilling or threatening that if she remarried she would have to give up her life tenancy ... that kind of thing is all gone'. But opposition came from Fine Gael in the Dáil and the Seanad and in its document The Just Society, published in the same year as the Succession Act was passed. In that document, a section dealing with a proposed law reform programme stated that 'such follies as Fianna Fáil's Succession Bill will find no place in such a programme', although it did say that the rights of widows and dependent children would be protected. In Dáil debates, former taoiseach John A Costello , father of Declan Costello, originator of The Just Society document, praised many aspects of the Bill. He pointed to situations where, under prevailing conditions, wives were 'badly treated'. However, future taoiseach Garret FitzGerald opposed the Bill in the Seanad. Haughey had personal insight into the possible plight of widows. He was 22 in 1947 when his father died, aged 49, leaving a widow and seven children. Haughey's sister, Ethna, recalled how Cathal, as he was known in the family, phoned their mother regularly when she returned from early-morning Mass. The Succession Act came late for many, not only widows. In 1936, Osmond Esmonde contested his father's will in which his father, Thomas, had left his entire estate to his second wife. Following a lengthy court hearing, the court opted in favour of Osmond's stepmother. Not a shilling for the only surviving son. In 2023, the Law Reform Commission published a review of the Succession Act. A number of changes had taken place since 1965, including the Status of Children Act, 1987, which abolished the concept of illegitimacy. This was of major importance. But the Succession Act, 1965, remains Haughey's legislative innovation. Dr Finola Kennedy was lecturer in economics at UCD when appointed to the Second Commission on the Status of Women set up by Charles Haughey
ABC News
03-06-2025
- Business
- ABC News
Millions in unclaimed deceased estates transferred to Queensland government as beneficiaries unable to be found
Millions of dollars in deceased estates have gone to the Queensland government in recent years after authorities were unable to find a beneficiary to inherit the money. Between 2020 and 2024, the Public Trustee transferred $2.95 million from ten estates to Queensland Treasury, with the funds put into consolidated revenue. Most of the funds came from a single estate worth $2 million that was given to the state government in 2021. The Queensland Public Trustee's office said funds could be transferred to the state when potential beneficiaries had died before the owner of the deceased estate. It can also happen when a beneficiary is identifiable but cannot be tracked down. When this occurs, the Public Trustee holds onto the funds for six years to allow potential claimants to come forward or be located. Public Trustee Samay Zhouand said his organisation did the "utmost within its powers" to find beneficiaries of deceased estates before transferring them to treasury. "Should a beneficiary emerge in the future, those funds remain available without time limit to those beneficiaries to claim," he said. The Succession Act in Queensland dictates who inherits what, including in circumstances when a person has not left a will. This is known as dying in intestate, with the deceased's estate distributed to next of kin in line with the Act. But it cannot go to relatives who are more remote than first cousins. The former Labor government began a review of the Succession Act in 2023, but did not finish it before leaving office. A spokesperson for the new Attorney-General Deb Frecklington said she had requested a comprehensive briefing of the review. The former government outlined a range of possible changes in a discussion paper. This included essentially banning adult children from contesting their parents' will if the estate is worth less than $250,000, as well as changing the definition of a spouse. Angela Cornford-Scott, who is chair of the Queensland Law Society's succession law committee, said the process of creating a straightforward will was not difficult or overly expensive. "If the people make a will and they don't have family members, they can at least direct their entitlements to friends or to charities where that money could actually do some good," she said. Ms Cornford-Scott pointed out if someone died without a will and did not have a spouse or children their estate could go to their parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, or cousins. She said in her career she had dealt with four or five cases where genealogists had to be engaged to identify the family tree. "Although four or five might not sound like a lot over a 25 year career, you remember them because they are so difficult and so unnecessarily complex and expensive," she said. Ms Cornford-Scott also said the Succession Act should be modernised, noting "things have changed dramatically" since it was created in 1981.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Consumer protection: Legal heir, not nominee, is beneficiary of policy
Kusum purchased 15 life insurance policies in the name of her unmarried daughter, Ranjeeta, and appointed herself as the nominee. Later, Ranjeeta married Anand Kumar and gave birth to a baby girl. Ranjeeta passed away when the child was just 11 months old. Following her daughter's death, Kusum claimed the insurance proceeds. However, before the claims could be settled, her son-in-law, Kumar, filed a civil suit under the Indian Succession Act, asserting that he and his minor daughter were entitled to the insurance benefits. Kusum was not even made a party to the suit. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where it was decided that the policy claims would be paid to Anand Kumar. Upon learning of this decision, Kusum filed a writ petition challenging the order. The petition was dismissed on the ground that she had not first pursued the remedy of filing a civil revision before the Unnao court. Subsequently, Kusum filed a revision before the Unnao civil court, which directed her to deposit the claim amounts in fixed deposits in the name of her granddaughter until she attained majority at the age of 18 years. Unwilling to accept this, Kusum approached the Allahabad High Court, contending that she alone was entitled to the insurance proceeds by virtue of being the sole nominee. The court observed that there was no dispute over the fact that Ranjeeta had died intestate and that her daughter was one of the heirs entitled to her estate under the Indian Succession Act. The core issue was whether a nominee had a beneficial interest in the insurance claims or whether the legal heir, in this case, the granddaughter, was entitled to the proceeds. The court observed that, prior to the 2015 amendment to Section 39 of the Insurance Act, a nominee was considered merely a custodian of the insurance amount, responsible for distributing it to the legal heirs. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi vs Usha Devi. The 2015 amendment to Section 39 changed this position, granting the nominee a beneficial interest in the insurance claim. Emphasising that the rights of parties must be determined according to the legal provisions prevailing on the date the cause of action arises, the court acknowledged a conflict between the Insurance Act and the Succession Act. It distinguished between a 'beneficiary nominee' and a 'collector nominee', clarifying that only specific categories —namely, parents, spouse, children, or spouse and children — qualify as beneficial nominees. Siblings do not fall within this category. The court further held that an insurer is not competent to adjudicate disputes between legal heirs, nor is it responsible for ensuring that the rightful heirs under personal succession law ultimately receive the proceeds. The purpose of naming a nominee is to enable the insurer to discharge its obligations by making payment to the nominee. In its judgment dated April 30, 2025, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, .the high court concluded that the Insurance Act is a general law that governs insurance contracts, whereas the Succession Act is a special law that governs inheritance rights.
