The estate of a bigamist - a thorny issue

Just discovered (after researching this for about twelve years) that an aunt's husband committed bigamy.

The two married in 1921 ( I have the certificate) and separated, having no children. Her husband remarried in 1941 and described himself as a 'widower' (again, I have the certificate). But my aunt was alive then (indeed, I have a photo of her with me taken around ten years later). She died in 1966.

The bigamist husband died without making a will (ie intestate) in 1967 leaving an estate of around £1,000.

So, who should have inherited the £1,000?

Answers on a postcard...... :-)

Legally who knows, but morally I would say the second wife should

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Legally who knows, but morally I would say the second wife should

---

Wouldn't disagree - but that's totally irrelevant :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Just discovered (after researching this for about twelve years) that an aunt's husband committed bigamy.

The two married in 1921 ( I have the certificate) and separated, having no children. Her husband remarried in 1941 and described himself as a 'widower' (again, I have the certificate). But my aunt was alive then (indeed, I have a photo of her with me taken around ten years later). She died in 1966.

The bigamist husband died without making a will (ie intestate) in 1967 leaving an estate of around £1,000.

So, who should have inherited the £1,000?

Answers on a postcard...... :-)

---

The only legitimate wife, of course.

By the way, it always amuses me when people think that their family trees are so straightforward and that they can easily trace their roots when there were always cases of children born as a result of illicit relationships, secret adoptions and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

By the way, it always amuses me when people think that their family trees are so straightforward and that they can easily trace their roots when there were always cases of children born as a result of illicit relationships, secret adoptions and the like.

---

It's "the like" that's the real spanner in the works...

The second "Marriage" was not in fact a marriage and no court of law would recognise it.
further to the £1000 is the question of who gets his half of any land property chattels, as technically his wife is still his next of kin!!

I know a High Level county court Judge , I'll ask him next time i see him. he loves questions like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Legally who knows, but morally I would say the second wife should

---

Really?

An intriguing question indeed. :sherlock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

The second "Marriage" was not in fact a marriage and no court of law would recognise it.
further to the £1000 is the question of who gets his half of any land property chattels, as technically his wife is still his next of kin!!

---

You raise an interesting point. My aunt predeceased her husband and also died intestate leaving £4,527 and a cottage designed by Lutyens which was later valued at £18,000. So why was her husband not the beneficiary of her estate? It was actually divided between her siblings and if they were dead, their children.

Maybe he should have done.
I was separated from my wife for 13 years but she continually obstructed and attempt by my to complete a divorce puely because she wanted to feck my life up.
however she had cancer and she signed the decree absolute papers 2 days before she died to ensure I got none of our joint property/chattels that I had left to her when i walked away. Ut didn't bother me because the children got half each which was OK. But it raises the point that had she not signed that I'd have legally got everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

Really?

---

of course. that was his common law wife and she married in the belief that his first wife was dead. Why should she lose out.

If it was me, then I would turn down such an inheritance and give it to the second spouse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Just discovered (after researching this for about twelve years) that an aunt's husband committed bigamy.

The two married in 1921 ( I have the certificate) and separated, having no children. Her husband remarried in 1941 and described himself as a 'widower' (again, I have the certificate). But my aunt was alive then (indeed, I have a photo of her with me taken around ten years later). She died in 1966.

The bigamist husband died without making a will (ie intestate) in 1967 leaving an estate of around £1,000.

So, who should have inherited the £1,000?

Answers on a postcard...... :-)

---

It should go to probate. As the second marriage is a bigamous marriage, it isn't a marriage in law, therefore the second wife is not the next of kin. Of course, if the estate is divided before the marriage is found to be bigamous, then it'll be pretty tough to reclaim the money.

After lawyers fees, there wouldn't be any money left for either party :sherlock:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xsnaggle

The second "Marriage" was not in fact a marriage and no court of law would recognise it.
further to the £1000 is the question of who gets his half of any land property chattels, as technically his wife is still his next of kin!!

---

This is the correct answer, the second marriage is null and void and the bigamist was lucky to escape a prison sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

After lawyers fees, there wouldn't be any money left for either party :sherlock:

---

You don't need a lawyer for Probate. Anyone who dies without a will has to go to probate, it's quite easy to do as a next of kin, and there are full instructions on the government website to guide you through. There are probate fees though.

Remember that both parties died in the mid-sixties.

An undertone is that the bigamist split from my aunt because of pressure from his family as she was considered 'unsuitable' (it is alleged). He was the son of a clergyman who was also the architect for several churches. My aunt frankly blagged her way into an elevated position and told porkies when she married.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cyclops

Remember that both parties died in the mid-sixties.

An undertone is that the bigamist split from my aunt because of pressure from his family as she was considered 'unsuitable' (it is alleged). He was the son of a clergyman who was also the architect for several churches. My aunt frankly blagged her way into an elevated position and told porkies when she married.

---

Please tell us more ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

The only legitimate wife, of course.

By the way, it always amuses me when people think that their family trees are so straightforward and that they can easily trace their roots when there were always cases of children born as a result of illicit relationships, secret adoptions and the like.

---

It amuses me more when people think they can research their family tree without buying certificates etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

After lawyers fees, there wouldn't be any money left for either party :sherlock:

---

£1,000 would be worth about 20k in today's money

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louth

It amuses me more when people think they can research their family tree without buying certificates etc

---

Yeah, it's a lot easier to dig up the bones and take a DNA sample around midnight on a full moon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

Really?

---

Yeah, just my opinion, but I would say so.

He "married" the second woman 20 years after the first and was (effectively) married to her for 25 years, whereas the first wife presumably had no contact with him after they separated, otherwise she would have known about the bigamy. If the bloke was a house, she would have had squatters rights by then :hehe:

Also, reading it again, the first wife died before the bigamistanyway, so she couldn't inherit anything. Then wouldn't the money default to the second woman as his common law wife, having lived together for 25 years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Yeah, just my opinion, but I would say so.

He "married" the second woman 20 years after the first and was (effectively) married to her for 25 years, whereas the first wife presumably had no contact with him after they separated, otherwise she would have known about the bigamy. If the bloke was a house, she would have had squatters rights by then :hehe:

Also, reading it again, the first wife died before the bigamistanyway, so she couldn't inherit anything. Then wouldn't the money default to the second woman as his common law wife, having lived together for 25 years?

---

Illegal contracts are invalid.

A common-law wife was not recognised legally. In fact, I was lodging with a couple up in Scotland when the chap dies, leaving his pregnant partner in what would have been the marital home had they been married. He had purchased their house under just his name but on his death the property passed to his wife as their divorce was still in progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

A common-law wife was not recognised legally. In fact, I was lodging with a couple up in Scotland when the chap dies, leaving his pregnant partner in what would have been the marital home had they been married. He had purchased their house under just his name but on his death the property passed to his wife as their divorce was still in progress.

---

Is the law different in Scotland? No idea, just asking.

It does sound like the kind of thing that would happen south of the border though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

A common-law wife was not recognised legally. In fact, I was lodging with a couple up in Scotland when the chap dies, leaving his pregnant partner in what would have been the marital home had they been married. He had purchased their house under just his name but on his death the property passed to his wife as their divorce was still in progress.

---

Did you, hmmm .. nah, forget about it :biggrin:

In what respect? Historically, the concept of a common law wife mattered for nought either side of the border.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Illegal contracts are invalid.

---

The law is an ass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

Yeah, just my opinion, but I would say so.

He "married" the second woman 20 years after the first and was (effectively) married to her for 25 years, whereas the first wife presumably had no contact with him after they separated, otherwise she would have known about the bigamy. If the bloke was a house, she would have had squatters rights by then :hehe:

Also, reading it again, the first wife died before the bigamistanyway, so she couldn't inherit anything. Then wouldn't the money default to the second woman as his common law wife, having lived together for 25 years?

---

It was just the 'morally' bit I was struggling with really :hehe:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mrs Steve R

It was just the 'morally' bit I was struggling with really :hehe:

---

To me it just seems right that the woman who thought she had been married to him for 25 years until he died would get the money, rather than the woman who he hadnt seen for 45 years.
I know that may not be what the law says (although as the first wife died before him I can't see how she is supposed to be able to inherit anything anyway)