Latest news with #SuccessionAct
ABC News
7 days ago
- Business
- ABC News
Millions in unclaimed deceased estates transferred to Queensland government as beneficiaries unable to be found
Millions of dollars in deceased estates have gone to the Queensland government in recent years after authorities were unable to find a beneficiary to inherit the money. Between 2020 and 2024, the Public Trustee transferred $2.95 million from ten estates to Queensland Treasury, with the funds put into consolidated revenue. Most of the funds came from a single estate worth $2 million that was given to the state government in 2021. The Queensland Public Trustee's office said funds could be transferred to the state when potential beneficiaries had died before the owner of the deceased estate. It can also happen when a beneficiary is identifiable but cannot be tracked down. When this occurs, the Public Trustee holds onto the funds for six years to allow potential claimants to come forward or be located. Public Trustee Samay Zhouand said his organisation did the "utmost within its powers" to find beneficiaries of deceased estates before transferring them to treasury. "Should a beneficiary emerge in the future, those funds remain available without time limit to those beneficiaries to claim," he said. The Succession Act in Queensland dictates who inherits what, including in circumstances when a person has not left a will. This is known as dying in intestate, with the deceased's estate distributed to next of kin in line with the Act. But it cannot go to relatives who are more remote than first cousins. The former Labor government began a review of the Succession Act in 2023, but did not finish it before leaving office. A spokesperson for the new Attorney-General Deb Frecklington said she had requested a comprehensive briefing of the review. The former government outlined a range of possible changes in a discussion paper. This included essentially banning adult children from contesting their parents' will if the estate is worth less than $250,000, as well as changing the definition of a spouse. Angela Cornford-Scott, who is chair of the Queensland Law Society's succession law committee, said the process of creating a straightforward will was not difficult or overly expensive. "If the people make a will and they don't have family members, they can at least direct their entitlements to friends or to charities where that money could actually do some good," she said. Ms Cornford-Scott pointed out if someone died without a will and did not have a spouse or children their estate could go to their parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, or cousins. She said in her career she had dealt with four or five cases where genealogists had to be engaged to identify the family tree. "Although four or five might not sound like a lot over a 25 year career, you remember them because they are so difficult and so unnecessarily complex and expensive," she said. Ms Cornford-Scott also said the Succession Act should be modernised, noting "things have changed dramatically" since it was created in 1981.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
11-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
Consumer protection: Legal heir, not nominee, is beneficiary of policy
Kusum purchased 15 life insurance policies in the name of her unmarried daughter, Ranjeeta, and appointed herself as the nominee. Later, Ranjeeta married Anand Kumar and gave birth to a baby girl. Ranjeeta passed away when the child was just 11 months old. Following her daughter's death, Kusum claimed the insurance proceeds. However, before the claims could be settled, her son-in-law, Kumar, filed a civil suit under the Indian Succession Act, asserting that he and his minor daughter were entitled to the insurance benefits. Kusum was not even made a party to the suit. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, where it was decided that the policy claims would be paid to Anand Kumar. Upon learning of this decision, Kusum filed a writ petition challenging the order. The petition was dismissed on the ground that she had not first pursued the remedy of filing a civil revision before the Unnao court. Subsequently, Kusum filed a revision before the Unnao civil court, which directed her to deposit the claim amounts in fixed deposits in the name of her granddaughter until she attained majority at the age of 18 years. Unwilling to accept this, Kusum approached the Allahabad High Court, contending that she alone was entitled to the insurance proceeds by virtue of being the sole nominee. The court observed that there was no dispute over the fact that Ranjeeta had died intestate and that her daughter was one of the heirs entitled to her estate under the Indian Succession Act. The core issue was whether a nominee had a beneficial interest in the insurance claims or whether the legal heir, in this case, the granddaughter, was entitled to the proceeds. The court observed that, prior to the 2015 amendment to Section 39 of the Insurance Act, a nominee was considered merely a custodian of the insurance amount, responsible for distributing it to the legal heirs. This principle was laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarbati Devi vs Usha Devi. The 2015 amendment to Section 39 changed this position, granting the nominee a beneficial interest in the insurance claim. Emphasising that the rights of parties must be determined according to the legal provisions prevailing on the date the cause of action arises, the court acknowledged a conflict between the Insurance Act and the Succession Act. It distinguished between a 'beneficiary nominee' and a 'collector nominee', clarifying that only specific categories —namely, parents, spouse, children, or spouse and children — qualify as beneficial nominees. Siblings do not fall within this category. The court further held that an insurer is not competent to adjudicate disputes between legal heirs, nor is it responsible for ensuring that the rightful heirs under personal succession law ultimately receive the proceeds. The purpose of naming a nominee is to enable the insurer to discharge its obligations by making payment to the nominee. In its judgment dated April 30, 2025, delivered by Justice Pankaj Bhatia, .the high court concluded that the Insurance Act is a general law that governs insurance contracts, whereas the Succession Act is a special law that governs inheritance rights.
