Re GM (Deceased); Re M; M v M
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1972 |
| Date | 01 January 1972 |
| Court | High Court |
Moral duty - Adopted son - No provision made for only child - Power of court to make suitable provision - Succession Act, 1965 (No. 27), s. 117.
Section 117, sub-s. 1, of the Succession Act, 1965, provides: —"Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just." The testator and his wife were married in 1924 but they did not have children. In 1941 the wife informally adopted the plaintiff who was then a boy three years old. In 1954, when the plaintiff was 16 years old, the testator and his wife adopted the plaintiff formally. The testator died in 1968 when the plaintiff was 32 years old and a married man with two children. By his will made in 1961 the testator left all his property in Ireland, and his shares and securities, to his executors on trust for his wife for life with remainder to his two nephews. The plaintiff did not receive any benefit under the will and he issued a special summons in which he claimed the intervention of the High Court pursuant to s. 117 of the Act of 1965. The testator's wife exercised her right under s. 111 of the Act of 1965 and elected to take one third of the testator's estate in place of the devises and bequests to her in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B (E) v S (S) & McC (G)
...the plaintiff, the court had to sit "in the testatrix's chair" on the eve of her death, to use the language of Kenny J. in F.M -v- T.A.M. 106 ILTR 82. While he accepted that subsection (2) was primarily directed towards the extent of the provision that should be made once it had been estab......
-
Rojack v Taylor and Buckhalter
...SUCCESSION ACT 1965 S117 SPIERIN & FALLON THE SUCCESSION ACT 1965 & RELATED LEGISLATION: A COMMENTARY 3ED 2003 353 M (F) v M (T) 1970 106 ILTR 82 C & F v C (W) & C (T) 1990 2 IR 143 1989 ILRM 815 NEGLIGENCE: Duty of care Solicitors - Succession - Administration of estates - Solicitor's d......
-
J. De B. v H.E. De B
...of a positive failure in moral duty.C.C and Ch.F. v. W.C. and T.C.IR [1990] 2 I.R. 143 and F.M. v. T.A.M. and OthersDLTR (1970) 106 I.L.T.R. 82 applied. 4. That the only other way the deceased could have made provision for the plaintiff was by giving him a bigger legacy, but since the remai......
-
C.C. v W.C.
...by objective considerations the court's view and not the testator's view being decisive. M. (F.) v. M. (T.) & Ors. In re M.DLTR (1970) 106 I.L.T.R. 82 approved. 2. That the phrase "failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means" in s. 117, sub-s......