What Is The Forfeiture Rule?
In her latest Timms blog, Head of Wills and Probate Jo Robinson discusses the Forfeiture Rule.
The Forfeiture Act 1982 is a fascinating piece of legislation which prevents a convicted person from benefitting from their crime.
Therefore, if someone unlawfully kills another person then they are no longer able to benefit from the deceased person’s estate, regardless of whether they are a beneficiary in the Will or a beneficiary under the rules of intestacy (the laws that apply when someone dies without leaving a valid Will).
The same rule applies to jointly owned property. Where one co-owner murders the other then the property will no longer automatically pass to the survivor by the rules of survivorship.
In the 1911 case of ‘Estate of Crippen’ it was held that “it is clear that the law is – that no person can obtain, or enforce, any rights resulting to him from his own crime; neither can his representative, claiming under him, obtain or enforce any such rights. The human mind revolts at the very idea that any other doctrine could be possible in our system of jurisprudence”.
Are There Any Exceptions?
Section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1982 gives the Courts the power to modify for the rule, provided that the Court is satisfied that “having regard to the conduct of the offender and of the deceased and to such other circumstances as appear to the Court to be material, the justice of the case requires the effect of the rule to be so modified in that case.”
Amos v. Mancini (2020)
In the case of Amos v Mancini, the Judge had to decide whether the forfeiture rule applied to a tragic case of an elderly woman convicted of causing the death of her husband by careless driving. Under the terms of his Will, she was the residuary beneficiary of his estate and they also owned the family home as joint tenants which would normally pass to her under the rules of survivorship.
The widow asked the Court to modify the forfeiture rule so that she could benefit from her husband’s estate and from the jointly owned property. Whilst she could not argue that the manslaughter did not amount to an unlawful killing, she argued that the words “in certain circumstances” indicated that not every circumstance of unlawful killing attracted the rule and such an offence should not do so.
There was no direct authority on this point but the Judge considered the earlier case of Dunbar v Plant 1998 in which it was held “So far as the rule is concerned, I cannot see any logical basis for not applying it to all cases of manslaughter…in the crime of manslaughter the actus reus is causing the death of another. That actus reus is rendered criminal if it occurs in one of the various circumstances that are prescribed by law. Anyone guilty of manslaughter has…caused the death of another by criminal conduct. It is in such circumstances that the rule…applies.” He therefore concluded that the forfeiture rule did apply.
However, he went on to consider whether he could make an order modifying the effect of the rule under Section 2 of the Act. He felt that the widow’s lapse of concentration while driving had been significant, but it had also been a lapse of a few moments. He also noted that the application had not been contested by all those who would benefit should the rule not be modified and that the effect of the rule would be significantly out of proportion to the widow’s capability. He was therefore satisfied that justice required him to modify the effect of the rule.
How Can We Help?
If you have any Wills & Probate queries, please do not hesitate to contact me on 01332 364436 or at j.robinson@timms-law.com. Alternatively, you can visit the Wills and Probate section of our website here.
February 2022