Where a cohabitant dies without a will (intestate), the surviving partner would have
automatic rights to inherit half of their partner's estate, if they have been together for two years, under the new proposal. Under the current law, the estate is transferred to the intestate's children or family memebrs. Cohabitees have no automatic right to inherit their partner's assets if they die without leaving a will, unless if an application is made to the courts under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975) where the partner is granted a discretionary award on the basis of their needs. This is currently a complex procedure as the Commission says it causes "great financial and emotional cost".The commission acknowledges that some people will find the review of the intestate rules controversial but says that research shows it would match public expectations, and is a welcomed issue. However, the question thus arises whether it undermines marriages. Will this step drive the issue of marriages and the overwhelming rise in divorce rates further underground? Do people marry with a crude expectation that when their partner dies they will receive their estate? Ultimately, is this review of reasonable legislation necessary at all? It is certianly a striding step in the wrong direction which will make our society increasingly corrupt...one issue leads onto another, and I dread to think what step the law will take in the next few years after such a law is implemented to follow on from this! I hope our judges aren't getting too old to lose sense.
This proposal from the Law Commission shows that in trying to implement justice to those who have shared the same roof under their mutual & respective will and wish that it would be fairer to give a piece of the cake to them!!!!
ReplyDeleteWell, from my considered point of view, i would say:
taking justice into account, it is true that for most parties, it would be fair to give them a piece of the cake for they have shared the same spirit for a long time and they deserve at least a minimum recognition in the eyes of the law.
However, the only flaw to this piece of proposal is the lapse of time which shall demonstrate if the relationship was strong enough for one of the partner to receive the part of inheritance.
I would definitely criticise the 'two years' in particular. The two years is not enough to calculate the inheritance that should be attributed to one of the partner.
In my considered opinion, it should be at least 4 to 5 years minimum. In two years, people still live on honeymoon or unrealistic relationship that does not necessarily give the merit for the partner to receive such 'inheritance'.
Fairness cannot be measured for sure nor calculated but objective observation might help in deciding on whether or not an unmarried couple sharing the same roof has reached the stage where one can deduced there was something substantial to their relationship.
Another critic is that: this piece of legislation will definitely undermine marriage!!!! Comparing an unmarried couple to a married couple is in my opinion comparing horses & donkeys!!!!
British judges are not too old to have a guess on how long can we calculate whether a relationship deserve the merit of inheritance.
Aleeyah Lallmahomed