Proceeding contribution from Greg Knight (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Friday, 21 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill.
Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill
My hon. Friend, like me, is a lawyer, so I hesitate to suggest this to him, but is not the answer to that question that any good will has a default position? If a testator gives to a son a share of the estate, which might be a 100% share, and that son then murders the testator, thus becoming prohibited from inheriting under the forfeiture rule, a good will would state that in the event that a son does not inherit, the estate should go to person A, B, C or whoever. Does my hon. Friend agree that a well-drafted will should cover that eventually? In my view, a will that does not do that and merely gives money to one person, without stating what will happen if that person cannot inherit, is an appallingly drafted will.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 521 c1147
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Homicide Gifts and endowments Inheritance tax Euthanasia Intestacy Probate Succession Wills Forfeiture Next of kin
- Legislation
- Estates of Deceased Persons (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:03:26 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704150
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704150
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_704150