In a tweet: Insufficient evidence that H had divorced W1 led to the inevitable conclusion his marriage to W2 was void with repercussions for his claim on W2's estate
This content is only available to members
If you are a current member log on now.
If you are not a member contact Class Legal on 01652 652222 or email them via info@classlegal.com to get started.
Case note, published: 12/01/2017
Topics
See also
- The Claimant was the daughter of the deceased mother, who had died intestate, and the Defendant claimed to have been married to the deceased and had a child with her. Both parties were claiming a grant of letters of administration to the estate of the deceased. The court found that, although the Defendant's marriage to the deceased was void because he had not divorced his previous wife, and therefore had no right to share in her estate on the footing of her intestacy, (although there were claims to share assets on the basis of constructive trust which had not yet been pleaded and considered) an administrator should be appointed on account of the Claimant's dishonesty throughout the proceedings. Judgment, 19/12/2016, free
Published: 12/01/2017
Share