Forfeiture rule disregarded in heartbreaking case

Forfeiture rule disregarded in a heartbreaking case where the wife was responsible for her husband’s death 

The forfeiture rule means that you cannot benefit from someone’s death when you were responsible for the person dying. Most people would agree that this rule generally makes sense. However, it is not always clear cut as a recent inheritance dispute case highlights. The court decided the rule should not apply as it would have prohibited a 74 year old wife from inheriting from her late husband’s estate. 

Mr Amos was 81 years old when he and his 74 year old wife were on their way to Mr Amos’ sister’s funeral. Mrs Amos was driving as Mr Amos was feeling unwell. They set off from their house in Wales at 6:30am but when they reached Slough they had got lost. The couple decided to head home and around 4:30 pm it was beginning to get dark and it started to rain. 

They came off the motorway and approached a roundabout. There was a queue of traffic and Mrs Amos, unfortunately, collided with the vehicle in front causing a four-vehicle shunt. Mrs Amos lost consciousness and could not remember what caused her to crash. 

Mr and Mrs Amos were helped from their vehicle and taken to hospital to be checked over. Initially, Mr Amos appeared well, but he died later that evening from multiple traumatic injuries with Mrs Amos at his side. 

Mrs Amos was then charged with causing death by careless driving. She pleaded guilty straight away and was sentenced to 32 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 12 months. This meant that she did not actually have to go to prison providing she did not do anything else wrong in the next 12 months. Mrs Amos also received a 12 month driving ban. 

The Judge who sentenced Mrs Amos said “It is a tragedy for you as much as anyone else. As a result of what happened that night, you have lost your beloved partner of 30 years. Your loss is a devastating one and I have no doubt whatsoever that that is a significant punishment in itself, far exceeding anything that this Court could or would consider passing.”

If the circumstances were not sad enough, the forfeiture rule then prohibited Mrs Amos from inheriting from Mr Amos’ estate.  Mr Amos’ will left everything to Mrs Amos, but if she did not survive him then his other family members were to inherit. His daughter from a previous marriage was to receive £20,000 and the rest of his estate was to be divided between his son from a previous relationship and his granddaughter. 

Mr and Mrs Amos also jointly owned a house which they purchased in 1992. It was dilapidated and they renovated it into their dream home. In 2000 they turned it into a B&B, which they ran until 2017. 

Jointly owned property is either held as ‘joint tenants’ or ‘tenants in common’. One of the differences is that property owned as joint tenants automatically passes to the survivor upon one of co-owners death, regardless of what their will or the rules of intestacy say. With tenants in common, the deceased’s share of the jointly owned property passes in accordance with their will or the rules of intestacy. 

As Mr and Mrs Amos’ house was owned as beneficial joint tenants, it would usually have passed to Mrs Amos automatically under the rules of survivorship. However, the forfeiture rule also prohibits this. 

Mrs Amos applied to the probate registry for a grant of probate to deal with Mr Amos’ estate. However, because of the forfeiture rules, Mrs Amos had to apply to the court for relief in order to inherit from Mr Amos’ will and Mr Amos’ share of their house under the rules of survivorship.  

Initially, Mr Amos’ daughter, Beverly, said that she wanted the rules of forfeiture to apply- meaning that Mrs Amos would not inherit under Mr Amos’ will. Beverly said that in 2016, when Mr Amos made his will, he had an argument with her husband. This is presumably why Mr Amos did not leave Beverly as much as her brother and her daughter.  Beverly said that her husband and her father had made up in 2018 and Mr Amos said that his will was not how he wanted it to be. However, she failed to submit evidence to the court so played no further part in the court proceedings. 

Mr Amos’ son and granddaughter did not contest Mrs Amos’ application to the court for relief from forfeiture. 

The court has the power to effectively disregard the forfeiture rule in certain circumstances and in this case, the Judge thankfully agreed to do so. This meant that Mrs Amos could inherit the house by survivorship and the rest of Mr Amos’ estate.  It was hopefully some relief after such a tragic set of events.

Our specialist contested probate team here at Birkett Long have experience dealing with a wide range of difficult circumstances that arise when someone passes away. If you need legal advice following a bereavement please contact us to see how we can help. 

If you are concerned about anything I have mentioned in the above, please do not hesitate to contact me on 01206 217307 or [email protected].

Birkett Long has the largest contested probate team in Essex and has vast experience dealing with all types of claims against estates.