Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

SUCCESSION — INTESTACY — DISTRIBUTION OF ESTATE

In brief

  •  The significance of making a will cannot be overstated. Many people, however, put off writing one because they don’t want to think about their death, or because they believe writing a will is an expensive or complicated process. Many people also believe that having a will is unnecessary because their property and belongings would be naturally passed on to their spouses and children. This article will explain why everyone needs a will and what happens if someone dies without one.

What happens if you die interstate or partially interstate? 

  •  If a deceased person has not left instructions for the distribution of some of his or her assets and properties, those assets and properties shall be distributed in accordance with the Distribution Act, 1958. According to the 1958 Act, assets are distributed differently based on the heirs or lawful family members left behind by the deceased.

Q. Assume that both spouses had passed and that they had no children. As a result, both of them possessed a property before they died, but no wills were written. How would the court address this issue in this situation?

A. In most cases, if neither person has made a written will, the court will divide the property evenly between the parents of both parties. If a person dies without a parent, spouse, or children, his inheritance will be divided among his/her siblings, grandparents, uncles and aunts, great grandparents, and great grand uncles and aunts.

. However, if a person dies and leaves the spouse, children, and parents, the spouse will receive a quarter of the remaining assets, the children half, and the parents the remaining quarter. Section 4 of the Distribution Act of 1958 covers further scenarios.

What can I do to avoid intestacy?

  •  Solicitors will normally suggest incorporating a residuary provision in Wills to avoid intestacy and prevent assets from being distributed pursuant to the 1958 Act. These are general terms that cover the remainder of your estate. In other words, this clause will cover all assets that you do not specifically specify in your Will and provide directions for their distribution or inheritance.

Example: You can direct the remainder of your estate to a nonprofit organization or a specific individual. You can also direct that your leftovers be sold and the money divided according to any formula you specify, with the proceeds going to whoever you specify as the intended beneficiaries.

  •  Another strategy to prevent intestacy issues is to transfer part of your assets and properties to your chosen beneficiaries while you are still living. While you may not want to do this with all of your properties (for example, your current home), it does minimize the number of assets you or your attorneys will have to account for when preparing your will, lowering the danger of leaving any assets for which you have a specific intention.

Recent Post

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us