M. v M

CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date01 January 1973
Date01 January 1973

Moral duty - Testator's children having substantial independent income - Whether testator made proper provision for his children in accordance with his means - Effect of estate duty - Succession Act, 1965 (No. 27), s. 117.

The testator died leaving an estate worth approximately £430,000 gross. He had been divorced from his first wife in England by whom he had four children, all of whom at the date of the present proceedings were of age. All the children had been provided for by their grandfather and each had a substantial private income as a result. The testator had married a second time but had no children by his second wife. Each wife claimed to be the testator's legal spouse under Irish law. By his last will the testator, after a legacy to one of his executors, gave the entire residue to his executors upon trust to realise it and pay his debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and then to pay the income thereof to his second wife for her life or until remarriage. On her death or remarriage he gave his shares in various companies to his eldest son and then gave the residue of his estate absolutely to his younger son. He made no provision for his two daughters, stating that they were already well provided for out of other funds. He later made a codicil whereby he gave his residence and lands to his second wife absolutely. The testator's two daughters, and his younger son brought two applications under s.117 of the Succession Act, 1965, claiming that their father failed in his moral duty to make provision for them in accordance with his means and asked the court to do so out of the testator's assets. By reason of the levy for estate duty and legal expenses, if the will stood there would be nothing left for the younger son when the testator's second wife died. Held by the High Court (Kenny J.) 1. If there were a moral duty on the testator to make proper provision for his three younger children in accordance with his means, he failed to do it and the court would have to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • B (E) v S (S) & McC (G)
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 10 February 1998
    ...was not a moral duty susceptible of enforcement under s. 117 of the Succession Act, 1965. In the matter of N.S.M. deceasedDLTR (1971) 107 I.L.T.R. 1 applied. The plaintiff appealed the judgment and order of the High Court to the Supreme Court. Held by the Supreme Court (Keane and Lynch JJ.:......
  • The estate of J.L.W.(Deceased) and s. 117 of the Succession Act 1965. C.W v L.W
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 23 February 2005
    ...SECTION 117 OF THE SUCCESSION ACT, 1965 BETWEEN C. W. APPLICANT AND L. W. RESPONDENT SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S117 M (NS) (DECEASED), IN RE 1973 107 ILTR 1 C (C) & F (C) v C (W) & C (T) 1990 2 IR 143 1989 ILRM 815 1989/4/967 RYAN v RYAN UNREP KEANE 13.11.1979 1979/12/2148 SUCCESSION ACT 1965 ......
  • O'B. v S
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1985
    ...(1971) 401 U.S. 532. 16 Marckx v. Belgium [1979] E.C.H.R. 330. 17 In re Ó Laighléis ó laighléis [1960] I.R. 93. 18 In re N.S.M. (1971) 107 I.L.T.R. 1. 19 The Attorney General v. Southern Industrial Trust Ltd. (1957) 94 I.L.T.R. 161. 20 Buckley and Others (Sinn Féin) v. The Attorney General ......
  • L v L
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1978
    ...duties were created by the parties to it (see, in this connection, thejudgment of Mr. Justice Kenny in In the Matter of N.S.M. Deceased 107 I.L.T.R. 1 at 14In considering, then, the Plaintiffs" claim that the Testator failed in his moral duty to them, the Court should bear in mind that he a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT