LW 288 Law of Real Property

Succession Law: Rights of Children

Relevant Reading

De Londras Lyall Wylie

Learning Outcomes: -

Chapter 16 Chapter 28 Chapters 14 & 15

To explain what a child is entitled to under their the Succession Act and what options they have; To demonstrate when S117 Succession Act 1965 applies and the factors/criteria/standards the court will consider under this section; To apply this to a hypothetical situation.

What is a child entitled to? The Succession Act does not provide for a set percentile share of the estate of the deceased in favour of his children; rather, S.117 allows a child of any age to make an application to the Court for adjustment of their parents estate on the basis that the deceased parent has failed in their moral duty to make proper provision for the applicant child either during their lifetime or on their death. Applicable Legislation- S117 Succession Act 1965

Section 117 provides: (1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 1

(2) The court shall consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent, taking into account the position of each of the children of the testator and any other circumstances which the court may consider of assistance in arriving at a decision that will be as fair as possible to the child to whom the application relates and to the other children. (3) An order under this section shall not affect the legal right of a surviving spouse or, if the surviving spouse is the mother or father of the child, any devise or bequest to the spouse or any share to which the spouse is entitled on intestacy. (3A) An order under this section shall not affect the legal right of a surviving civil partner unless the court, after consideration of all the circumstances, including the testators financial circumstances and his/her obligations to the surviving civil partner, is of the opinion that it would be unjust not to make the order (6) An order under this section shall not be made except on an application made within six months from the first taking out of representation of the deceaseds estate.
Main features of S117 Provision for a child is not automatic, but depends upon application to court, within the time limit laid down in S117(6). There is no provision for its extension. Application may be made only by or on behalf of children. This does not include grandchildren. For deaths after 14 June 1988, this includes non-marital children. The test in deciding whether proper provision should be made is not whether the child was a dependent, but whether the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision viewed from the point of a prudent and just parent. 1 The court, by S117(2), is to consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent; The circumstances relevant to the decision of the court and to the exercise of the courts discretion have been elaborated in the case-law on this topic. However, each case must always be considered in the light of its own individual circumstances.

S117(1) SA 1965

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 2

The court is not permitted to make provision for a child which interferes with the legal right share of a surviving spouse, nor with a devise or bequest to, or share on intestacy of, a parent of the child. 2

Where the surviving spouse is the parent of potential claimants and the entire estate is left to him or her, the court cannot intervene under that section. The court will not hear proceedings issued six months after the first raising of representation to the estate. The proceedings will be held in camera.

Two stages in considering application It has been repeatedly stated that the courts determination is reached by way of a two stage process: i) ii) the first is that the court must decide whether the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child; Only if he has failed to do so, does the court proceed to the second stage, which is to decide what provision it will order to be made for the child. Laffoy J. has confirmed this procedure in A and C v Anor.3

Moral duty
A condition precedent to the court making provision for a child is that it is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child. The question is whether it has been discharged but in some cases the question of whether there was a moral duty has been raised as a preliminary matter. It appears to be that, by virtue of S117(1), there is a moral duty on a testator to make proper provision for children, but that provision could be made by will or otherwise. As Kenny J stated in FM v TAM4 the relationship of parent

and child does not of itself and without regard to other circumstances, create a moral duty to leave anything by will to the child. This duty may have been
discharged inter vivos by gifts or settlements made during the lifetime of the testator in favour of the child, or by providing the child with a high standard of

2 3

Re IAC [1990] 2 IR 143 [2007] IEHC 120. 4 FM v TAM (1970) 106 ILTR 82 at 87

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 3

education, or in some other way. Whether a testator is under a moral duty to make some provision for a child by his will therefore depends upon the provision he has otherwise made. The existence of such a duty is one which the court must ascertain objectively.

Has proper provision been made? The guidelines set out in the section for
deciding whether proper provision had been made are open. By S117 (1) the test is whether a testator has failed to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means and S117 (2) says the court is to consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent. The first attempt to elaborate guidelines was made in FM v TAM.5 Kenny J said: the existence of a moral duty to make proper provision by will for a child must be judged by the facts existing at the date of death and must depend upon (a) the amount left to the surviving spouse or the value of the legal right if the survivor elects to take this; (b) the number of the testators children, their ages and their positions in life at the date of the testators death; (c) the means of the testator; (d) the age of the child whose case is being considered and his/her financial position and prospects in life; (e) whether the testator has already in his lifetime made proper provision for the child. Finlay CJ approved the tests set out by Kenny J in FM v TAM in Re IAC

deceased6 and noted that there was a relatively high onus of proof on an
applicant to prove not that they were disappointed by the parents failure to provide for them to a greater extent but that there had been a positive failure of moral duty on the part of the parent. It was also remarked that where there was a relationship of trust and kindness between the parties, the court should entertain some significant reluctance to vary the will, but that different considerations would apply where there was marked hostility between the parties. Guidelines under S117 were also considered by Keane J. in Re LB deceased.7

55 6

FM v TAM (1970) 106 ILTR 82 at 87 [1989] ILRM 815 7 [1998]

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 4

Proper provision for the applicant child does not necessarily imply equal provision for all children; A failure in moral duty can be found if T is shown to have disregarded the special needs (arising either from physical/mental disability) of any one child; The understandable desire of parents to try to avoid friction among their children by treating them all as equally as possible needs to be recognised although it cannot bind the court in its deliberations upon a S.117 application;

Where T seems to have discharged his/her moral duty to a child while alive, the fact that a parent can be expected to know the child better than anyone else can be taken into account in explaining why Ts earlier behaviour is not replicated in his/her will: T may reasonably have felt that further benefaction by will would not have done the child any good. In the case of Re ABC decd, XC and Ors v RT & Ors 8 (a) Kearns J took the

opportunity to extract the principles that had been established up to that date. the social policy underlying S.117 is primarily directed to protecting those children who are still of an age and situation in life where they might reasonably expect support from their parents, against the failure of parents who are unmindful of their duties in that area; (b) What has to be determined is whether T, at the time of his death, owes any moral obligation to the children and if so, whether he has failed in that obligation; (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) There is a high onus of proof placed on an applicant for relief under Before a court can interfere, there must be clear circumstances and a The duty created by S.117 is not absolute; The relationship of parent and child does not, itself and without regard to S.117 does not create an obligation to leave something to each child; S.117, which requires the establishment of a positive failure in moral duty; positive failure in moral duty must be established;

other circumstances, create a moral duty to leave anything by will to the child;

[2003] IR 250 at 262

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 5

(h) (i)

The provision of an expensive education for a child may discharge the Financing a good education so as to give a child the best start in life

moral duty as may other gifts or settlements made during the lifetime of T; possible and providing money, which, if properly managed, should afford a degree of financial security for the rest of ones life, does amount to making proper provision; (j) (k) The duty under S.117 is not to make adequate provision but to provide A just parent must take into account not just his moral obligations to his proper provision in accordance with Ts means; children and to his wife, but all his moral obligations, e.g. to aged and infirm parents; (l) In dealing with a S.117 application, the position of an applicant child is not to be taken in isolation. The Courts duty is to consider the entirety of Ts affairs and to decide upon the application in the overall context. i.e. while the moral claim of a child may require T to make a particular provision for him, the moral claims of others may require such provision to be reduced or omitted altogether; (m) Special circumstances giving rise to a moral duty may arise if a child is induced to believe that by, for example, working on a farm, he will ultimately become the owner of it, thereby causing him to shape his upbringing, training and life accordingly; (n) (o) (p) Another example of special circumstances might be a child who had a Special needs would also include physical or mental disability; Although the court has very wide powers both as to when to make long illness or an exceptional talent which it would be morally wrong not to foster;

provision for an applicant child and as to the nature of such provision, such powers must not be construed as giving the court a power to make a new will for T; (q) The test to be applied is not which of the alternative courses open to T the court itself would have adopted if confronted with the same situation but, rather, whether the decision of T to opt for the course he did, of itself and without more, constituted a breach of moral duty to P; (r) The court must not disregard the fact that parents must be presumed to know their children better than anyone else.

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 6

In the case which was before the court, the testator, following a divorce in England which was alleged was invalid, had remarried. Under his will, all his property was left to his second wife. No direct provision had been made for the two children of his first marriage or for the two children of his second marriage. The testator had created a discretionary trust- plaintiffs were trustees and both plaintiffs and defendants were beneficiaries.

The children from the first marriage instituted proceedings under S117, claiming that by establishing a discretionary trust he had failed to make proper provision for them. Kearns J. outlined the principles above and also took into account the moral duty owed by the deceased to his second wife, the stepmother of the claiming children. Kearns J also had regard to a moral obligation which the deceased owed to his mother who was still alive and in a nursing home. It was held that the deceased did owe an ongoing moral duty to his son who had shown himself to be unable to manage his business affairs. The deceased was deemed to have knowledge of this inability and the resultant unlikelihood that the P would succeed in business at the time of his death. This ongoing moral duty was satisfied by the establishment of the discretionary trust. (Noted that it may not always do so, but did in the circumstances of this case.)

What is Proper Provision? The moral duty of the testator is to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means. This is a variable standard which does not involve the giving of a fixed share to each child or to the children as a whole. -

McDonald v Norris 9Provision satisfying S.117 should be advancements that

relate either to an education which enables the child to make his way in life or else advancements of money which would enable the child to establish himself by their use.

[1999] 1 ILRM 270 (HC); [2000] 1 ILRM 382 (SC)

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 7

Measuring the Moral duty- factors taken into consideration Provision during lifetime
The obligation falling on a testator to make proper provision for his children is one which does not necessarily require provision to be made by will. As S117 (1) states, the moral duty of the testator is to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise. -

Needs of children
The reasonable needs of a child are taken into consideration and medical or other conditions that may result in a lesser ability to provide for oneself or a greater need for care and support are also to be taken into account. S(D) v

M(K) & Anor 10

Where one of the children of T has a physical or mental disability and, as a result, requires particular support, and the remaining children are well-established in their lives and professions, T may be said to have made proper provision if he left everything to the child with the disability and nothing to the remaining children, even if they were badly treated by T and not enabled to acquire further education when they were younger McC (M) v M 11 Equality S.117 does not require a parent to treat all children equally. Thus, while a court will respect a parents wish to treat their children equally, it will not necessarily find that proper provision has been made just because the children were treated equally In the estate of LB: EB v SS 12

10

[2003] IEHC 120

[2001] IEHC 152 [1999] 2 ILRM 141

11

12

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 8

The Parent Child Relationship The nature of the relationship between the parent and the child will be significant in the consideration of S.117 applications. o o A caring relationship will result in the Court being relatively reluctant to interfere; The behaviour of each party may have an impact on the extent of the moral duty owed at the time of the parents death.

JH & CH v Allied Irish Bank

13

Ps were the only children of T, who was married to their

mother in 1953. The marriage began to deteriorate in 1961/62 and in 1971 T left the family home and went to live alone in a flat, where he remained until his death. From 1971 to his death T had only formal communications with his family, and the relationship between him and his children suffered. The children remained with their mother and had very little to do with their father. On his death, T made very little provision for both of the applicant children. *The Court had to consider whether the childrens neglect of their relationship with their father vitiated his moral duty towards them? Held: The Testator did have a moral duty, however neglected, thwarted or aggrieved he may have felt.

Re McDonald: McDonald v Norris14

T had 2 children P and a younger son. Upon his death, T left all of his property on trust for the daughter of a neighbouring family with whom he had lived and who had taken care of him. This was subject to 5,000 left to P in discharge of any moral obligations which T might have towards him. P had been in occupation of the land. Relations between P and his father broke down in 1980 because of Ps marriage choice. Relations between the father and son became violent, resulting in the Gardai becoming involved and T seeking possession of the lands from his son. P counter-sued for compensation for the work done, as a result of which P
13 14

[1978] ILRM 203 [2000] 1 ILRM 382

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 9

was ordered to leave the land and the father ordered to pay him 11,000. P paid 2,000 to his father in order to remain in the land until 1985, but he stayed there for some time once the agreement had expired. As a result, P was imprisoned for 11 months, during which time his wife and son ran the quarry. In October 1986 T regained possession and transferred the lands to Ps brother. From then on P engaged in great hostility against his father and the family with whom his father lived, including threatening them and causing damage to their property. In May 1988, P was bound to keep the peace for 2 years following charges before the DC involving verbal abuse and threatening behaviour. Following his fathers death, P made a S.117 application claiming that his father had failed in his moral duty towards him by leaving him only 5,000. HC: application was unsuccessful held: the son and his wife may not have been responsible for the hostility directed towards the deceased and the family with whom he resided, but they were aware of it and had done nothing to stop it. P had behaved appallingly towards his father from 1984 onwards, and had permitted and encouraged the intimidation and bullying of T when he was more than 70 years of age. The Court concluded that T, at the time of his death, was entitled to consider that he had given considerable benefits to P while he was alive, and that his moral duty towards his son was affected by Ps conduct. According to McCracken J. the scheme of the Succession Act 1965 implied that the behaviour of a child towards his parent was something that the court could take into account when assessing moral duty and, in the circumstances, any remaining moral duty (taking this behaviour into account) had been properly provided for by the deceased. SC (on appeal): Barron J. reversed decision of the HC held: the HC had been correct in taking into account the behaviour of the applicant child, which could have the effect of extinguishing or reducing the moral duty of the parent. However, the behaviour had to be seen in its context. The reasons behind the sons behaviour, i.e. the fathers disapproval of his marriage choice and attempt to have him removed from the land that he had farmed since being taken from school to do so in 1968, were relevant factors. Thus, while the applicants behaviour did diminish the moral duty owed to him by his father, it did not extinguish it and the proper provision had not been made.

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 10

EB v SS15 concerned a S.117 application stated to be for the benefit of the grandchildren
of the testatrix (T). The applicant was the son of T, who had received many benefits from her and his father, including a house bought for himself and his sister by his father, in which the applicant resided with his wife and children, education, employment and a substantial sum of money. The applicant had previously had an alcohol and drug addiction and although his mother was aware of this, she did not make any further provision for him in her will. Rather, she considered that she had treated all her children equally by giving them equal shares from the proceeds of sale of shares in her late husbands company following his death, and that she was not obliged to provide further for her son. Her son, who had enjoyed sizeable provision from both of his parents during their lives, claimed that his mother had a moral duty to provide for his needs, one of which was his need to provide for his own children as she was aware that, at the time of her death, he and his wife resided with their children and were dependent on social welfare and because she had a large estate, she ought to have made provision for him in her will. Her failure to do so, he claimed, constituted a positive failure in her moral duty. Ps application failed in both the HC and SC. While conceding that the deceased in this case might have had some obligation to help her son to provide for his own children, this was not a matter that could be taken into account by the court in assessing whether she had fulfilled her moral obligation as required by S.117. Disinheritance Section 121 limits the ability of a person to disinherit his spouse and children by disposing of property prior to death so as to diminish the size of his estate. S.121 gives the Court the discretion to deal with dispositions of property made within three years of the death of the deceased that, the Court is satisfied, were intended to defeat or substantially reduce the shares of a surviving spouse in testacy/intestacy or to defeat or substantially reduce the shares of a surviving

15

[1998] 4 IR 527

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 11

child in intestacy or to leave any of the deceaseds children insufficiently provided for. The Court may order that such disposition shall, in whole or in part, be deemed to be a devise/bequest made by will which forms part of the deceaseds estate resulting in the property being subject to the LRS of the surviving spouse or a S.117 application by a child of the deceased. If the property has been sold the claim relates to the consideration offered for the property. REVIEW 1. What percentage is a child entitled to when their mother/father dies? 2. Explain who is a child of the testator. 3. Olivias father died intestate. She is considering making a S117 claim. While you are not aware of all the circumstances, what are your initial thoughts about this? 4. Johns father died in 2009. Under the terms of the will John received 10,000. Probate of the will was granted in early 2010 and the administration of the estate was concluded by December 2010. It is now February 2012. John feels disappointed that he didnt receive a six-figure sum. He has decided to pursue a S117 claim. What advice would you give John at this stage. 5. Gerry OMalley died on 1st December 2011. In his will he left all his property to his wife Mary. Gerry and Marys twin children Jonathan and Edwina, are disappointed that they didnt receive anything under the terms of the will. May they make a S117 claim? Why? 6. Sean O Se died on the 15th January 2012. Under his will, Sean left all his property to his two sons in equal shares. The two brothers are delighted at the prospects of their inheritance. However, Tomas, aged 22 who is a grandson of Sean is most disappointed that his grandfather didnt leave him a few bob.

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 12

Tomas intends pursuing a S117 claim. Advise Tomas regarding his prospects. (There were no other children and Seans wife Nora is also deceased). 7. John has come into your office to give you instructions for his new will. During the consultation, John tells you that he has two children from his first marriage. He tells you that he got divorced when his children were around 2 and 3 years old and has not seen the children since his divorce. He also tells you that since the divorce he has made no maintenance payments to his children. His instructions are to leave everything he owns to his second wife with whom he has no children. Advise John on the possible consequences of drafting a will in those terms. 8. Emily comes into your office for some advice. She believes that her husband, who is dying has made a new will and has left her nothing in his will. She has two small children and she says that she needs some sort of inheritance to support the children when her husband is gone. Advise Mary as to what legal protection exists for her and what rights her children have to their fathers estate. 9. David, a widower, married Liz, a younger woman, shortly before his death in 2011. The week before getting married to Liz, he made a valid will expressed to be in anticipation of that marriage, in which he left everything to Liz. Seans son, Kevin, aged 29, who lost his job last week, is upset about this. Advise Kevin, outlining any further information you would need to give him conclusive advice as to his situation.

LW 288 Law of Real Property Succession Law- Childrens Rights EW Feb 2012

Page 13