This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations .(October 2022) |
Intestate succession in South African law takes place whenever the deceased leaves property which has not been disposed of by valid testamentary instrument. In other words, the law of intestate succession applies only:
Intestacy may be total (applying to the whole of the assets left by the deceased) or partial (applying to a portion only of his assets), for the deceased may die partly testate and partly intestate: for example, if the deceased bequeaths his car to his son but does not mention the rest of his estate. [1]
Intestacy is total when none of the assets are disposed of by a valid will: for example, where there is no will at all, or only a will which is void, or which has been revoked. Intestacy is partial when the deceased has left a valid will which, however, does not dispose of all his assets; in this event there is an intestacy as to the undisposed residue. This may happen in many circumstances: for example,
Furthermore, intestacy can occur if certain conditions in an otherwise valid will are not fulfilled, or if benefits have been repudiated and no provision has been made for substitution, and accrual cannot take place.
The law of intestacy was virtually codified by the Intestate Succession Act, 1987, [2] which came into force on 18 March 1988. Before that, the South African system of intestate succession had to be construed from a variety of common-law and statutory rules. The law of intestate succession is rooted in the legislation of the States of Holland: the Political Ordinance of 1 April 1580, as clarified and amended by the Interpretation Ordinance of 13 May 1594 and Section 3 of the Placaat of 18 December 1599.
In 1621 the Heeren XVII of the Dutch East India Company instructed the government of the Dutch East Indies to enforce these enactments, and the States-General decreed them to be in force in Cape Colony by the Octrooi of 10 January 1661, which was confirmed by Governor Pasques de Chavonnes on 19 June 1714.
The main common-law principles of intestacy were derived from a combination of two systems, somewhat in conflict, which prevailed prior to 1580 in the Netherlands: the aasdomsrecht, the law of North Holland and Friesland, which meant "the next in blood inherits the properties", and the schependomsrecht, the law of South Holland and Zeeland, which meant "the properties return to the line whence they came". [3] Under both systems, the property of an intestate person went to the deceased's blood relations only: in the first place, to his descendants; failing them, to his ascendants and collaterals. There were several important differences in the manner of devolution.
The 1580 Ordinance adopted the schependomsrecht distribution per stirpes , restricting it in the case of collaterals to the fourth degree inclusive. Finally, the 1599 Placaat compromised between the two systems with respect to distribution, and gave one half of the estate to the surviving parent, and the other half to the descendants of the deceased parent. [4] [5]
The above laws conferred a right of succession on intestacy on the deceased's blood relations, but none on a surviving spouse or an adopted child, and furthermore restricted the intestate succession rights of the extra-marital child. Because marriage in community of property was the norm, such a spouse ipso facto took half of the joint estate.
Initially, the word spouse in the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 was restrictively interpreted to mean only those spouses who had contracted a marriage in terms of the Marriage Act, 1961. [6] This interpretation has since been extended by case law, in recognition of the modern perception that there is a need to protect the interests of surviving spouses. The common law, as derived from the two different systems that applied in Holland, has been adapted on numerous occasions by legislation. The most important such legislation was probably the Succession Act, 1934, [7] in terms of which the surviving spouse, whether married in or out of community, was granted a right to a share in the intestate estate of the deceased spouse.
The Intestate Succession Act, 1987 [2] instituted a much simpler system of intestate succession, revoking common-law rules and all statutory adaptations in their entirety. The Intestate Succession Act, 1987, together with the Children's Act, 2005, extended the categories of persons who may be heirs who take in intestacy. For example, all natural persons, irrespective of whether they are adopted or extra-marital, or conceived by artificial insemination, or born as a result of a surrogacy arrangement, nowadays have the capacity to inherit.
The Intestate Succession Act, 1987 applies, except as explained below, in all cases where a person dies wholly or partially intestate after 18 March 1988. Under the Act, the surviving spouse and the adopted child are heirs of the deceased. The historical discrimination visited on extra-marital children has disappeared. The position of adopted children is now dealt with in the Child Care Act, 1983. [8]
Until recently, the application of the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 was regulated on a racial basis. Certain intestate estates of African people were distributed according to the "official customary law," as entrenched in the Black Administration Act, 1927 and its regulations, while the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 applied to the rest of the population. The Black Administration Act, 1927, and the Regulations passed thereunder, provided that the estates of black people who died without leaving a valid will sometimes devolved according to "Black law and custom." This meant, inter alia, that the reforms introduced by the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 did not apply to spouses married in terms of African customary law. As far as children were concerned, the parallel system of African customary law of succession perpetuated discrimination against adopted, extra marital and even female children.
This racial disparity in the treatment of spouses and children disappeared when the Constitutional Court, in Bhe v Magistrate, Khayelitsha , extended the provisions of the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 retrospectively, as from April 27, 1994, to all intestate heirs, irrespective of race.
While the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 is important, one cannot discount case law when determining the rules of intestate succession. If and when the RCLSA is promulgated into law, it, too, will be relevant for determining South Africa's intestate-succession laws.
South Africa uses the Roman-Dutch parentelic system to reckon kinship and determine distribution in intestacy. The term parentela refers to a particular parental group and its descendants:
And so the parentelae go on. Essentially, the lowest parentela wins and takes the entire estate, and parentelic heads trump others within the same parentela.
A stirp may be translated literally as a branch. In the present context, therefore, it includes the surviving child of a deceased, as well as a predeceased child survived by descendants.
When determining how many stirpes there are, one should pay attention to the immediate descendants of the deceased and then see if they are alive or if their descendants are alive.
Representation arises when an heir cannot, or does not wish to, inherit from the deceased. In this case, the descendants of the heir may represent the heir to inherit.
If the deceased is married at the time of his death, the property system that applies to his marriage is of utmost importance since it affects the distribution of the deceased's estate. In terms of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 1998 and the Matrimonial Property Act, 1984, the first marriage of a male with more than one wife is always considered to be in community of property. If a second marriage is entered into, the parties must enter into an antenuptial contract, which will regulate the distribution of the estate.
Essentially, there are four forms of marital regimes recognised by the courts:
With regard to marriages in community of property or in community of profit and loss, the surviving spouse automatically succeeds to half of the joint estate (communio bonorum); the remaining half devolves according to the rules of intestate succession.
With regard to marriages in separation of property, [9] the entire estate devolves according to the rules of intestate succession.
With regard to the accrual system, [10] where one spouse's estate shows no or lesser accrual than that of the other spouse, the lesser-accruing spouse has a claim for an amount equal to half of the difference between the two net accrued estates. The equalization payment must be dealt with first as a claim against or in favour of the estate. The balance thereafter must devolve according to rules of intestate succession.
If a husband has an estate of R100,000 at the start of his marriage, and R200,000 at the end of the marriage, R100,000 will have accrued. If his wife, at the start of her marriage, has an estate worth R50,000, and at the end of the marriage worth R100,000, the amount accrued will be R50,000. If the husband dies, the difference in the accrual of both estates is R50,000; therefore the wife has a claim for half of the accrued amount: R25,000. Thereafter the remainder of the estate will devolve in terms of the rules of intestate succession.
The question of who in fact the heirs are is normally determined as at the date of the death of the deceased. Where, however, the deceased leaves a valid will which takes effect on his death, but subsequently fails, either wholly or in part, the intestate heirs are determined as at the date on which it first became certain that the will had failed.
Section 1(1)(a) to (f) of the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 contains the provisions in terms of which a person's estate is to be divided. In terms of this section, there are ten categories which indicate who will inherit. Section 1(2) to (7) contains certain related provisions.
Where the deceased is survived by a spouse, but not by a descendant, the spouse inherits the intestate estate. "Spouse" includes
Where the deceased is survived by a descendant, but not by a spouse, the descendant inherits the intestate estate. The estate is divided into as many equal portions as there are surviving children and deceased children who leave descendants. Each surviving child takes one share, termed a "child’s share," and the share of each deceased child is divided equally among his surviving children and each group of descendants of a deceased child. This process is known as representation per stirpes; it continues ad infinitum.
An adopted child is deemed, for all purposes, to be the legitimate child of its adoptive parent. An order of adoption terminates all rights and obligations existing between the child and its natural parents (and their relatives). It follows that an adopted child inherits upon the intestacy of its adoptive parents and their relatives, but not upon the intestacy of its natural parents and their relatives.
Under Roman-Dutch law, an illegitimate or extra-marital child inherited upon the intestacy of its mother, but not of its father. This limitation on the capacity of the extra-marital child to inherit on intestacy has been swept away by the Intestate Succession Act, which provides that, in general, illegitimacy shall not affect the capacity of one blood relation to inherit the intestate estate of another blood relation. Illegitimacy arising from incest, too, no longer presents a problem. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the tenuous position of extra-marital children under African customary law of succession, too, has been removed by making the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 applicable to all children.
Where the deceased is survived by one spouse, as well as by a descendant, the surviving spouse inherits whichever is the greater of
The descendant or descendants inherit the residue (if any) of the intestate estate.
To calculate a child's share, the estate is divided into as many children's shares as stated above, plus an additional share, which the surviving spouse takes.
Where the deceased is survived by more than one spouse, a child's share in relation to the intestate estate of the deceased is calculated by dividing the monetary value of the estate by a number equal to the number of children of the deceased who have either survived or predeceased the deceased, but who are survived by their descendants, plus the number of spouses who have survived the deceased. Each surviving spouse inherits whichever is the greater of
The descendant or descendants inherit the residue (if any) of the intestate estate. Where the assets of the deceased are not sufficient to provide for each spouse with the amount fixed by the Minister, the estate is divided between the surviving spouses.
The share inherited by a surviving spouse is unaffected by any amount to which he or she might be entitled in terms of the matrimonial-property laws.
Where the deceased leaves neither a spouse nor a descendant, but is survived
In relation to the descendants of a parent of the deceased, division of the estate takes place per stirpes. Representation is allowed ad infinitum.
In this case, the surviving parent will inherit half of the estate, and the descendants of the deceased parent will inherit the residue per stirpes by representation.
In this case, the surviving parent is the sole heir.
Where the deceased is not survived by a spouse or descendant or parent, but is survived by descendants of his parents (by a brother or sister, for example, whether of the full or half blood), the intestate estate is divided into halves, one half going to the descendants of the deceased father by representation, the other half to the descendants of the deceased mother. The full brothers and sisters of the deceased consequently take a share in both halves of the estate, while the half-brothers and -sisters take a share in one half only of the estate. If, however, all the surviving descendants are related to the deceased through one parent alone, such descendants inherit the entire estate. Thus, for example, if there are no full brothers or sisters, but merely a half-brother of the deceased on his mother's side, the half-brother will take the whole estate to the exclusion of more remote relatives such as grandparents, uncles or aunts.
In this case, the descendants of the parents will inherit the entire estate in equal shares. The descendants inherit per stirpes by representation.
Where the deceased is not survived by a spouse, descendant, parent, or a descendant of a parent, the other blood relations of the deceased who are related to him nearest in degree inherit the estate in equal shares (per capita). The degree of relationship between the parties is,
A parent or child of the deceased would thus be related to him in the first degree, a grandparent or grandchild in the second degree, an uncle or aunt in the third degree, and so on.
If there are no relations of the deceased, by blood or by adoption, and no surviving spouse, the fiscus or State is entitled, after the lapse of thirty years, to claim the estate as bona vacantia (unclaimed property) in terms of the common law. The authority for this is the case of Estate Baker v Estate Baker . In these circumstances the State is not an "heir," and the estate is not "inherited." It merely accrues to the State.
The Law of Succession Amendment Act, 1992, [11] which came into operation on 1 October 1992, amended the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 as regards the rules for the disqualification of and the renunciation by an intestate heir of his inheritance. If a person is disqualified from being an intestate heir of the deceased, the benefit which the heir would have received had the heir not been disqualified, devolves as if the heir had died immediately before the death of the deceased, and as if the heir had not been disqualified from inheriting. [12]
Where an heir who stands to inherit along with the surviving spouse (provided that that heir is not a minor or mentally ill) renounces his or her intestate benefit, such benefit vests in the surviving spouse. [13] Where there is no surviving spouse, the benefit devolves as if the descendant had died immediately before the death of the deceased. [12]
Section 23 of the Black Administration Act, 1927 stated that, when African persons died intestate, their estates devolved in terms of the rules of primogeniture. Women and children, therefore, were excluded from inheriting under this Act. The case of Bhe v The Magistrate, Khayelitsha changed this by striking down section 23 as unconstitutional.
There is a statute not yet in force (the Reform of Customary Law of Succession and Regulation of Related Matters Act, 2009) which states that the estates of persons subject to customary law who die intestate will devolve in terms of the Intestate Succession Act, 1987. [14] This Act thus modifies the customary-law position.
A testator living under a system of customary law may still use his or her freedom of testation to stipulate that the customary law of succession must be applicable to his or her estate. In such a case, it would be necessary to apply the customary law of succession to the deceased estate.
If the customary law of succession is applicable, it is important to distinguish between the order of succession in a monogamous and polygynous household.
Persons married in terms of Muslim rites are not recognised in South African law as "spouses" proper. All references, therefore, to "spouses" in the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 do not apply. The courts in Daniels v Campbell and Hassam v Jacobs , however, have held that persons married in terms of Muslim rites may inherit as if they were spouses proper.
Persons married in terms of Hindu rites are not recognised in South African law as "spouses" proper. All references to "spouses" in the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 accordingly do not apply. The court in the case of Govender v Ragavayah , however, held that persons married in terms of Hindu rites may inherit as if they are spouses proper.
Before the Civil Union Act, 2006, partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership were not allowed to marry, and so could not inherit from each other intestate. The case of Gory v Kolver changed this position, with its finding that such partners could inherit intestate.
There is a proposed amendment to section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act, 1987, which will include partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support in the definition of "spouse." The amendment of the Act, it has been argued, is ill-advised. The memorandum to the Amendment Bill cites Gory v Kolver as authority, but it has been suggested that the situation which prevailed at the time that this case was heard no longer exists, due to the advent of the Civil Union Act, 2006. The decision in Gory v Kolver case was predicated on the fact that the parties were not able to formalise their relationship in any way. On the evidence, the parties had undertaken mutual duties of support. Had it been possible for them to do so, they would almost certainly have formaised their relationship. Were the parties in that situation presently, they would have the option of formalising their relationship under the Civil Union Act, 2006. The survivor would be considered a "spouse" for the purposes of the Intestate Succession Act,1987. The net effect of the proposed amendment, it has been argued, is that it elevates same-sex partnerships to a level superior to that of heterosexual life partnerships.
It has been suggested that the proposed Domestic Partnership Bill will address the concerns of parties to a same-sex or heterosexual relationship insofar as intestate succession is concerned. More importantly, both types of relationship (same-sex and heterosexual) will be on an equal footing under the proposed Domestic Partnership Bill. This arguably would not be the case if the proposed amendment to the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 were signed into law.
Furthermore, the memorandum to the amendment Bill states that the proposed amendment limits the application of the clause to cases where the court is satisfied that the partners in question were not able to formalise their relationship under the Civil Union Act, 2006. The question remains, however: What exactly would these circumstances be?
It is trite that the survivor of a heterosexual life partnership enjoys no benefits as a spouse under the Intestate Succession Act, 1987; nor may the survivor of a heterosexual life partnership claim maintenance from the deceased estate in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990. [15]
The Draft Domestic Partnerships Bill seeks to address those persons who do not wish to marry but who still want to formalise their partnerships. Section 20 of the Bill states that the definition of "spouse" in section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act, 1987 will include a registered domestic partner.
Section 26 of the Bill also provides that an unregistered domestic partner may apply for an order for intestate succession, and that the court will take into account, inter alia,
The Bill does not make the relationship between the parties a "marriage" or a "civil union" proper; it merely allows for the registration of the partnership.
A will or testament is a legal document that expresses a person's (testator) wishes as to how their property (estate) is to be distributed after their death and as to which person (executor) is to manage the property until its final distribution. For the distribution (devolution) of property not determined by a will, see inheritance and intestacy.
Escheat is a common law doctrine that transfers the real property of a person who has died without heirs to the crown or state. It serves to ensure that property is not left in "limbo" without recognized ownership. It originally applied to a number of situations where a legal interest in land was destroyed by operation of law, so that the ownership of the land reverted to the immediately superior feudal lord.
Intestacy is the condition of the estate of a person who dies without having in force a valid will or other binding declaration. Alternatively this may also apply where a will or declaration has been made, but only applies to part of the estate; the remaining estate forms the "intestate estate". Intestacy law, also referred to as the law of descent and distribution, refers to the body of law that determines who is entitled to the property from the estate under the rules of inheritance.
In common law and statutory law, a life estate is the ownership of immovable property for the duration of a person's life. In legal terms, it is an estate in real property that ends at death when ownership of the property may revert to the original owner, or it may pass to another person. The owner of a life estate is called a "life tenant".
In civil law and Roman law, the legitime, also known as a forced share or legal right share, of a decedent's estate is that portion of the estate from which he cannot disinherit his children, or his parents, without sufficient legal cause. The word comes from French héritier légitime, meaning "rightful heir."
Probate is the judicial process whereby a will is "proved" in a court of law and accepted as a valid public document that is the true last testament of the deceased, or whereby the estate is settled according to the laws of intestacy in the state of residence of the deceased at time of death in the absence of a legal will.
A person's next of kin (NOK) may be that person's spouse, adopted family member or closest living blood relative. Some countries, such as the United States, have a legal definition of "next of kin". In other countries, such as the United Kingdom, "next of kin" may have no legal definition and may not necessarily refer to blood relatives at all.
In the law of property, a pretermitted heir is a person who would likely stand to inherit under a will, except that the testator did not include the person in the testator's will. Omission may occur because the testator did not know of the omitted person at the time the will was written.
The slayer rule, in the U. S. law of inheritance, stops a person inheriting property from a person they murdered.
Forced heirship is a form of testate partible inheritance which mandates how the deceased's estate is to be disposed and which tends to guarantee an inheritance for family of the deceased.
International tax law distinguishes between an estate tax and an inheritance tax. An inheritance tax is a tax paid by a person who inherits money or property of a person who has died, whereas an estate tax is a levy on the estate of a person who has died. However, this distinction is not always observed; for example, the UK's "inheritance tax" is a tax on the assets of the deceased, and strictly speaking is therefore an estate tax.
In common-law jurisdictions, administration of an estate on death arises if the deceased is legally intestate, meaning they did not leave a will, or some assets are not disposed of by their will.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted to amend and codify the law relating to intestate or unwilled succession, among Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs. The Act lays down a uniform and comprehensive system of inheritance and succession into one Act. The Hindu woman's limited estate is abolished by the Act. Any property possessed by a Hindu female is to be held by her absolute property and she is given full power to deal with it and dispose it of by will as she likes. Parts of this Act was amended in December 2004 by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
In the law of inheritance, a laughing heir is an heir who is legally entitled to inherit the property of a person who has died, even though that heir is only distantly related to the deceased, and therefore has no personal connection or reason to feel bereaved over the death.
Inheritance law in Canada is constitutionally a provincial matter. Therefore, the laws governing inheritance in Canada is legislated by each individual province.
The South African law of succession prescribes the rules which determine the devolution of a person's estate after his death, and all matters incidental thereto. It identifies the beneficiaries who are entitled to succeed to the deceased's estate, and the extent of the benefits they are to receive, and determines the different rights and duties that persons may have in a deceased's estate. It forms part of private law.
Bhe and Others v Magistrate, Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v Sithole and Others; SA Human Rights Commission and Another v President of the RSA and Another was an important case in South African customary law.
Mthembu v Letsela and Another, an important case in South African customary law, was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division by Le Roux J on 21 November 1996, with judgment handed down on 25 November.
Testate succession exists under the law of succession in South Africa.
Inheritance law in ancient Rome was the system of law that governed the inheritance of property in Ancient Rome. This law was governed by the civil law of the Twelve Tables and the laws passed by the Roman Assemblies, which tended to be very strict, and law of the praetor, which was often more flexible. The resulting system was extremely complicated and was one of the central concerns of the whole legal system. Discussion of the laws of inheritance take up eleven of the fifty books in the Digest. 60-70% of all Roman litigation was concerned with inheritance.