The Helen Bailey murder , can anyone settle a discussion ?
Discussion
Helen Bailey the author was murdered by her fiancé and he was sentenced to life recently .
Can any of our learned friends settle a discussion we've had at work today please ?
He was a beneficiary in her will for a substantial amount I believe , does he still inherit in accordance with her will , or does he lose all benefits by being the convicted murderer ?
My view is that the will and its distribution would still stand , others disagree .
Anyone settle this one for us.?
Can any of our learned friends settle a discussion we've had at work today please ?
He was a beneficiary in her will for a substantial amount I believe , does he still inherit in accordance with her will , or does he lose all benefits by being the convicted murderer ?
My view is that the will and its distribution would still stand , others disagree .
Anyone settle this one for us.?
Pretty sure this covers it, the answer is murderer cannot benefit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forfeiture_Act_1982
Which comes from something from common law but the wiki article is fairly clear:
"The Act does not apply to people convicted of murder, so that murderers may not inherit property from their victims"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forfeiture_Act_1982
Which comes from something from common law but the wiki article is fairly clear:
"The Act does not apply to people convicted of murder, so that murderers may not inherit property from their victims"
No, he will be treated as having predeceased her.
http://www.lawskills.co.uk/articles/2011/10/murder...
http://www.lawskills.co.uk/articles/2011/10/murder...
cannot inherit. changes to inheritance law (or proposed changes?) however seem to (seek to) make it possible for the assets to pass to the offender's children if they were not involved in the killing.
the US have the same restrictions on inheriting - "Slayer" law
paul
edit - too slow !
the US have the same restrictions on inheriting - "Slayer" law
paul
edit - too slow !
paulmakin said:
cannot inherit. changes to inheritance law (or proposed changes?) however seem to (seek to) make it possible for the assets to pass to the offender's children if they were not involved in the killing.
That would be this lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_...
The killer is treated as if he'd died just before the victim - so he gets nothing, but his own heirs might get something, unless the victim's will made different provisions for what happens if he dies first.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4260010/He...
Maybe the husbands sons will inherit something?
Maybe the husbands sons will inherit something?
55palfers said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4260010/He...
Maybe the husbands sons will inherit something?
They would have to be pretty cold to take anything. That is assuming it ever got to that point, as the Mail article is the usual 2 + 2 = something to make you cross, but won't happen.Maybe the husbands sons will inherit something?
PF62 said:
They would have to be pretty cold to take anything. That is assuming it ever got to that point, as the Mail article is the usual 2 + 2 = something to make you cross, but won't happen.
Boys are totally innocent and we're very much family to Helen in that article so I don't know why you think it would be 'cold'.Buster73 said:
Helen Bailey the author was murdered....
Why do the media always latch on to a victim's nice, middle-class occupation in this way? Would the same emphasis be given to 'Eileen Cloggs, the biscuit-factory worker'? Murder is a dreadful business - whatever the victim's 'status'.garyhun said:
Boys are totally innocent and we're very much family to Helen in that article so I don't know why you think it would be 'cold'.
Not sure where you are reading they were 'family' to her, the only mention is from Mavis the next door neighbour saying she was "fond". Was she going to say anything else?Would you take the money?
55palfers said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4260010/He...
Maybe the husbands sons will inherit something?
Maybe the husbands sons will inherit something?
garyhun said:
PF62 said:
They would have to be pretty cold to take anything. That is assuming it ever got to that point, as the Mail article is the usual 2 + 2 = something to make you cross, but won't happen.
Boys are totally innocent and we're very much family to Helen in that article so I don't know why you think it would be 'cold'.Aretnap said:
That would be this law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_...
The killer is treated as if he'd died just before the victim - so he gets nothing, but his own heirs might get something, unless the victim's will made different provisions for what happens if he dies first.
For the purposes of the disbursement of the estate of the deceased, the convicted murderer is deemed to have died immediately prior to the victim. Therefore, not only can they not inherit anything, their descendants do not inherit anything either. Unless they are specifically named in the will as beneficiaries, the boys will not receive anything.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_...
The killer is treated as if he'd died just before the victim - so he gets nothing, but his own heirs might get something, unless the victim's will made different provisions for what happens if he dies first.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/7/pdfs/uk...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_... explains that quite clearly:
Wikipedia said:
The Act originates in a 2000 case, when a man murdered his parents. The court determined that not just the murderer but also his son should be disinherited.
In this case they were engaged but not married.
The perp was the sole benefactor of her estate and local papers describe the executor as now having a discretionary role in distributing the estate which could include friends, the perp's sons, and charities.
Must say if my father had killed my future stepmother it would feel wrong to be benefitting in any way.
The perp was the sole benefactor of her estate and local papers describe the executor as now having a discretionary role in distributing the estate which could include friends, the perp's sons, and charities.
Must say if my father had killed my future stepmother it would feel wrong to be benefitting in any way.
Trabi601 said:
garyhun said:
Boys are totally innocent and we're very much family to Helen in that article so I don't know why you think it would be 'cold'.
Never before has a sentence so nicely summarised why you should know when to use, and when not to use, an apostrophe.QuickQuack said:
Aretnap said:
That would be this law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_...
The killer is treated as if he'd died just before the victim - so he gets nothing, but his own heirs might get something, unless the victim's will made different provisions for what happens if he dies first.
For the purposes of the disbursement of the estate of the deceased, the convicted murderer is deemed to have died immediately prior to the victim. Therefore, not only can they not inherit anything, their descendants do not inherit anything either. Unless they are specifically named in the will as beneficiaries, the boys will not receive anything.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_...
The killer is treated as if he'd died just before the victim - so he gets nothing, but his own heirs might get something, unless the victim's will made different provisions for what happens if he dies first.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/7/pdfs/uk...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_Deceased_... explains that quite clearly:
Wikipedia said:
The Act originates in a 2000 case, when a man murdered his parents. The court determined that not just the murderer but also his son should be disinherited.
On the broader point though you seem to be correct - I was under the impression that if a beneficiary dies before the decease, the default position is that his share passes to his own heirs. But on further reading it seems that this applies only where the beneficiary is a direct descendent of the deceased. (s33 of the Wills Act) So nowt for the boys unless they were named themselves.
OTOH if she'd been killed by her son instead of her boyfriend, the default position would be that the son's share would pass to his own children (if he had any) - the reverse of the outcome in the 2000 case.
Aretnap said:
I think you're misreading the Wiipedia article - the 2011 Act was introduced specifically to overturn the principles decided in the 2000 case - so the outcome of the 2000 case is no longer relevant to anything.
On the broader point though you seem to be correct - I was under the impression that if a beneficiary dies before the decease, the default position is that his share passes to his own heirs. But on further reading it seems that this applies only where the beneficiary is a direct descendent of the deceased. (s33 of the Wills Act) So nowt for the boys unless they were named themselves.
OTOH if she'd been killed by her son instead of her boyfriend, the default position would be that the son's share would pass to his own children (if he had any) - the reverse of the outcome in the 2000 case.
Ah, my mistake, sorry. I didn't read the Law Commission Consultation so misinterpreted the Wikipedia article to mean that the 2011 Act consolidated the court's determination rather than repeal it. I should've also had a look at the 1925 and the 1982 Acts. I might get round to those one day but not tonight! I have now had a look at the Law Commission Consultation paper though and what you said is correct (http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/cp172_Forfeiture_Consultation.pdf for anyone interested). It seems that I was only correct by the peculiarities of this specific case in that the murderer isn't a direct descendent of the victim.On the broader point though you seem to be correct - I was under the impression that if a beneficiary dies before the decease, the default position is that his share passes to his own heirs. But on further reading it seems that this applies only where the beneficiary is a direct descendent of the deceased. (s33 of the Wills Act) So nowt for the boys unless they were named themselves.
OTOH if she'd been killed by her son instead of her boyfriend, the default position would be that the son's share would pass to his own children (if he had any) - the reverse of the outcome in the 2000 case.
As an aside, I thought that a deceased person cannot inherit anything as they do not exist, but that intestacy rules, in essence, give a specific exemption to this by defining who would inherit the share of a deceased beneficiary because all beneficiaries are related to the deceased. I am not so sure about that now so I might have to read those Acts sooner than I thought...
garyhun said:
Trabi601 said:
garyhun said:
Boys are totally innocent and we're very much family to Helen in that article so I don't know why you think it would be 'cold'.
Never before has a sentence so nicely summarised why you should know when to use, and when not to use, an apostrophe.But it does show the importance of correct grammar and punctuation.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff