Intestate Succession Act 1967

“le of the executors is derived from the Will, Mr Rai argued that HSBC has no title to, and no right to deal with, the trust shares. Instead, the trust shares are to be dealt with separately under the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) and separate letters of administration have yet to be obtained.”

“are adults. It is not in dispute that the beneficiaries of the estate of AVS (“the Estate”) are the plaintiff and her four children (“the beneficiaries”). It is also undisputed that, under s 7 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed), the plaintiff is entitled to a 50% share in the Estate. Despite having”

“s in 2003, moved out. Thereafter, the Plaintiff, the Deceased and the Aunt occupied the Flat. On 7 September 2007, the Aunt passed away. On 28 November 2008, the Deceased passed away. Pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed), the beneficiaries of the Estate were the surviving children of the Dece”

“kin” in terms of the persons entitled to claim against the estate of a deceased person on intestacy. For example, an illegitimate child is not entitled to a claim against the estate on intestacy (see Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed), ss 6 and 7; AAG v Estate of AAH, deceased [2010] 1 SLR 769 at [39]).”

“e CPF Act, the CPF Board transferred his CPF moneys to the Public Trustee in accordance with the CPF Act, and the moneys are presently held by the Public Trustee pending distribution. Pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) which applies by operation of the CPF Act, the two sons are each to rece”

“R6 contend) held on trust by R1 at the time of its sale, the net sales proceeds form part of their parents’ estates, which then fall to be divided in accordance with the rules of distribution in the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) (“Intestate Succession Act”). In this regard, it is important to note tha”

“hether a sham marriage is a valid or void marriage under the Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) (“Women’s Charter”) and whether a party to a sham marriage is a “surviving spouse” under s 7 of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) (“ISA”) and a “wife” under s 73 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property”

“deration the Plaintiff’s share in the Flat. Subsequently, when the Plaintiff requested, the Defendant would sell the Flat and divide the net sale proceeds equally between them, in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed).”

“d’s estate, including the plaintiff, as that was what the deceased had wanted. The defendant further asserts that there is no will and, thus, the Property has to be distributed in accordance with the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) (the “ISA”). The defendant was granted letters of administration and she”

“the Will. Although the Dunlop Street property formed part of the Deceased’s estate, since it was not covered by the Will, it had to be distributed in accordance with the laws of intestacy. Under the Intestate Succession Act 1967 , the Plaintiff is entitled to one half share of the Dunlop Street property while her three”

“The defendants’ position is that as the Deceased had died intestate, Mr Shankar is the sole beneficiary of the Deceased’s estate by operation of the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) (“Intestate Succession Act”).”

“r to the property that the deceased had beneficially owned while he was alive, which can only refer to property acquired up till the point in time immediately preceding his death (see, eg, s 5 of the Intestate Succession Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) and s 37(1) of the PAA). Nevertheless, in my view, regardless of whether the”

“us, if Evelyn chooses not to move out of the Property before her demise, there arises a situation of partial intestacy and, upon Evelyn’s demise, the Property falls to be distributed according to the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed). It would therefore appear that the trustees of Dr Khoo’s Estate continu”

“(c) that the Defendant be excluded from the distribution and entitlement to any share of the Deceased’s assets and that the Plaintiff be solely entitled to all the Deceased’s assets pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed).”

“is prescribed by s 18 of the Probate and Administration Act 1934 (2020 Rev Ed) (“PAA”). Entitlement to the letters of administration is based on priority of entitlement to the estate under s 7 of the Intestate Succession Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed) (“ISA”): see Toh Seok Kheng at [23]–[24]; G Raman, Probate and Administratio”

“) ss 35, 36A, read with Sch 2, Part 1. Under Singapore law, Mrs Doney would receive half of Mr Doney’s estate, with the remaining half split equally amongst all of Mr Doney’s children: see s 7 of the Intestate Succession Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed), Rules 2 and 3.”

“ble or immovable property devolves as if the other party to the marriage had been then dead”: s 103 of the WC. Without this rule, the general position would be that stipulated in Rule 1 to s 7 of the Intestate Succession Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed), whereby the spouse of an intestate who “dies leaving a surviving spouse, no”