Facts

Mr Low and Mdm Lina were married in 1975. Their marriage did not produce any children but Mr Low had children from his previous marriage and they are the Plaintiffs in this matter. Mr Low passed away in 1994 and bequeathed his estate to Mdm Lina. Mdm Lina died in April 2011 without leaving a will. Apparently, an unsigned will was found in Mdm Lina’s safe deposit box leaving her estate to the Plaintiffs but no evidence was adduced as to how the unsigned will came about. As such, the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146) (“ISA”) governs the distribution of Mdm Lina’s estate. According to the ISA, her estate would go to her surviving brother, who was the Defendant in this matter.

Mdm Lina’s estate comprised an HDB flat, a freehold private property as well as jewelry and cash in a bank safe deposit box.

The Plaintiffs commenced an action for a declaration that as step-children of Mdm Lina, their claims in respect of her estate rank higher in priority over the claim of the Defendant who is  Mdm Lina’s brother.

Issue

The court had to determine whether “child” under section 3 of the ISA is to be interpreted to include a step-child. If the answer is ‘yes’, the Plaintiffs would be deemed to be the ‘children’ of Mdm Lina for the purposes of the ISA. Under the rules of distribution in s7 of the ISA, if the Plaintiffs are considered “children” for the purposes of the ISA, they would be entitled to Mdm Lina’s estate in equal portions to the exclusion of other parties. However if the Plaintiffs are not regarded as Mdm Lina’s children under the ISA, then her estate will go to the Defendant as her only surviving family member under Rule 6 in the ISA.

Court’s Findings

Section 3 of the Act states as follows:-

““child” means a legitimate child and includes any adopted child by virtue of an order of court under any written law for the time being in force in Singapore, Malaysia or Brunei.”

The Plaintiffs’ counsel sought to argue that the ambit of the above was wide enough to include step-child. Furthermore he also argued that Mdm Lina’s estate comprised largely of assets derived from her step-children’s biological parent, i.e. Mr Low, and that the step-children were treated by Mdm Lina as her own children. Notwithstanding the same, the Court took the position that a step-child is not meant to be covered by the ISA.  Section 6(b) of the ISA states that a person related by half blood ties to the deceased rank after one who is related by whole blood. As step-children do not have blood ties to their step parent, they cannot claim against the latter’s estate under the ISA.

As such, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any interest in Mdm Lina’s estate which went entirely to her surviving brother the Defendant.

In the concluding remarks in the judgment, the Court pointed out that although Mdm Lina had treated the Plaintiffs as her own children, love and filial piety do not make a person a “child” of the intestate if that person does not come within the ambit of the ISA. It is therefore incumbent on step-parents wishing to provide for their step-children’s entitlement to their estate to expressly state so in a proper will.

Concluding Thoughts

This case is a good reminder to all of us to do the responsible thing by drawing up our wills rather than leaving our estate to be distributed under rules of intestacy. Clearly distribution under the ISA may not necessarily reflect our intentions especially in light of each family’s unique circumstance. Any dispute thereafter would only exhaust the time, energy and resources of our loved ones which can be avoided by leaving behind a properly drafted and executed will.