Knowledge…Shared…Multiplies
A few years ago, I was asked by an attorney to research and provide an opinion on a legal problem namely: How is the estate of a person who dies intestate but leaving a wife and no children is to be divided? The opinion was for the benefit of Allana (fictitious name), a client of the attorney.
Allana was married to Clebert (fictitious name). Clebert died unexpectedly at the young age of 35. Clebert was into the IT field. Allana was into banking but she was IT savvy and had a good mind for finance. Allana and Clebert had been married for 8 years but they had no children. Clebert did not make a will.
Everything in husband’s sole name
By the time of his death, Clebert owned a house in an upscale area of Grenada. The house was the family home but it was solely in Clebert’s name. Clebert also owned a thriving IT business. Both Allana and Clebert had invested in the business. Allana also put in many hours of work in the business, at nights and on weekends. Clebert and Allana were in reality partners in the IT business but the business was registered in Clebert’s sole name.
After the death of Clebert, Allana resigned her job and continued to operate the business. She also continued to live in the family home.
After about three years of the Clebert’s passing, Allana tried to move on with her life and she commenced a new relationship. A few months after commencing the new relationship, she received a letter from an attorney representing Clebert’s parents. The letter claimed that Clebert’s parents were entitled to half of his estate and demanded that Allana take the required legal steps to transfer their entitlement to them.
Prima facie rule: 50% to surviving spouse and 50% to parents of deceased
My research showed that under the Intestates Estates Act, Chapter 154 of the Laws of Grenada, where a person dies leaving a spouse but was childless, 50% of the estate of the deceased person goes to the surviving spouse and the other 50% to the parents of the deceased.
Based on the research, Allana was advised that the parents were indeed, prima facie, entitled to half of Clebert’s estate; half of all he owned at the time of his death. Allana immediately protested, saying that it was unfair. While the house and business were in Clebert’s name, she had contributed substantially in acquiring the house and in building and operating the business. Clebert’s parents, she said, did not put anything into the business nor into acquiring the house; it would therefore be unfair for them to get 50%.
Application to vary
Having heard out Allana, we were able to advise her that the research had also shown that the rule that the spouse gets 50% and the parents 50% was only a starting point. It was a rebuttal presumption, as the lawyers would say. It could be displaced. She could apply to the court for an order to vary her share, to
give her a bigger share. She would have to convince the court that she had contributed to the building up of Clebert’s estate to such a degree that she is entitled to more than the 50%.