- 死者与女方有一私生子。他在过世前有立下一份遗嘱，并提到他会将所有的个人财产分给留下来的孩子:“I GIVE all my personal chattels including motor vehicles equally for those my children who survive me.”
- 死者过世后，他的遗产执行人想要卖了死者的房产，要求女方’交空屋“ 。
- 女方指她和死者在2008年有进行过传统婚姻仪式，孩子是死者的亲生子女；而且死者在遗嘱中有说明会将遗产留给孩子，所以她和孩子有权留在死者的房子里。遗产执行人因此对女方提告。
- 法庭不接受妻子的供词。法庭首先指死者和女方之间没有合法的婚姻关系；因此这个孩子是属于私生长，无权获得死者的遗产。
- 再来，法庭也不认为遗嘱里注明的”孩子”，包括这个私生子。死者是在这孩子出世的两年后立下遗嘱；法庭指如果死者有意将私生子列为受益人，他应该会在立遗嘱时，就注明这孩子的名字和其他资料，可是他并没有这么做。
- 高等法庭批准了执行人的申请，命令女方’交空屋“ 。
*详细的案情和判决，请阅读以下英文版的文章
The plaintiff was the executor of the estate of Cory John Gray (‘the deceased’) whereas the defendant was the wife of the deceased by way of a customary marriage.
- The deceased had passed away leaving a will dated 04.08.2020.. Vide a grant of probate granted by the High Court of New Zealand, the plaintiff was appointed as the administrator of the deceased’s estate. The said grant of probate was later resealed by the High Court of Kuala Lumpur on 24.07.2013.
- The plaintiff as the administrator and executor of the estate of the deceased had intended to sell a house owned by the deceased but the defendant had refused to accede to the plaintiff’s request for vacant possession of the said house.
- Consequently, the plaintiff filed this originating summons seeking for an order of summary vacant possession of the said house pursuant to O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 (‘the ROC’) (‘encl 1’).
- In resisting encl 1, the defendant submitted that both the defendant and her child were entitled to remain and stay in the said house because she was the wife of the deceased and the child was the deceased’s biological son. The defendant also submitted that the child was entitled to the deceased’s estate by virtue of cl 3 of the said will.
- Further, the defendant submitted that she had contributed to the purchase of the said house as the initial deposit of the said house amounting to RM13,440 was paid by her. In this regard, the plaintiff contended that in the sale and purchase agreement (‘the SPA’) of the house, the purchaser was the deceased alone and the defendant was not a party to the SPA’s transaction.
Held, allowing encl 1 with costs of RM5,000:
- The legal position of the requirement of solemnisation and registration of a marriage under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 (‘the LRA’) to create a legal and binding matrimonial relationship between a man and wife is unequivocally clear. It was not disputed that the customary marriage claimed by the defendant was never solemnised and registered under the LRA. Based on the above findings, the court concluded that there was no valid marriage between the defendant and the deceased. Thus, the defendant could not claim that she was entitled to benefit from the deceased’s estate. In addition, since the customary marriage was not recognised by law, hence, the child was born out of wedlock and was an illegitimate child. Therefore, the child did not have any rights to the deceased’s estate.
- The documents produced by the defendant did not support her case. In the offer to purchase adduced by the defendant, the vendor was not the same vendor as in the SPA. The defendant’s personal cheque of RM13,440 did not support cl 2 of the offer to purchase as the amount to be paid on the date of the execution of the offer to purchase must be 10% of the purchase price ie RM44,800 and not RM13,440. Further, the official receipt issued by Low, Sunita & Ngoi to the defendant as acknowledgment of payment of RM13,440 by the defendant did not refer to the said house. The court found that the assertion of payment of the initial deposit towards the purchase of the said house by the defendant was a bare and baseless assertion.
- The will was executed more than two years after the customary marriage took place and after the child was born. If the deceased had intended to include the defendant’s name and her son, the deceased would have included their name in the said will. But this did not happen. Further, although the word ‘children’ was used in the said will, the material fact remained that there was no valid and legal marriage between the defendant and the deceased. Hence, the child was born out of wedlock and for all intent and purpose an illegitimate child.
- Based on the above reasons, the court concluded that there were indeed no triable issues raised by the defendant to deny the plaintiff’s right for an order under O 89 of the ROC.
Source: Maxwell John Gray (as administratortrustee for the estate of Cory John Gray, deceased) v Lim Siew Shun [2019] 8 MLJ 119. High Court Shah Alam. Azimah Omar J.
==============================
*如果您需要聘请律师处理法律事务，您可以联系我们。
*如果您需要法律咨询(付费)，您可以联系我们。
*我们有处理民事纠纷 (打官司/法庭诉讼)、商业纠纷、劳工纠纷(工业法庭）、追讨债务、遗产分配、立遗嘱、离婚、抚养权、赡养费、产业分配、领养小孩、拟商业合约、拟雇佣协议、拟买卖合约、银行贷款、法律咨询、法律顾问、等法律事务。全马的案件，我们皆有处理。我们的律师楼拥有超过15年的执业经验。*We have more than 15 years of experience in the legal profession. We handle matters such as civil litigation, commercial disputes, labour disputes (Industrial Court), debt recovery, probate & letter of administration, will, divorce, children custody, maintenance/alimony, adoption, distribution of matrimonial assets, drafting commercial agreement, drafting employment contract, drafting sale and purchase agreement, process loan documentations, legal consultation, legal advisory, miscellaneous legal works.
*Wilson Kuek是“法律与你同行 Law & Justice”面子书群组的创办人。“法律与你同行”是马来西亚最大的法律平台。我们每天为无数的平民百姓免费解除各类的法律困扰。
*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekong.com
*浏览我们律师楼的法律文章: www.kuekongklg.com
*订阅我们的YouTube: http://bit.ly/lawnjustice
*加入 我们的“法律与你同行”FB 群组: http://bit.ly/fblawnjustice
*Like 我们的“法律与你同行” FB Page: http://bit.ly/lawnjusticefbpage
*加入我们的Telegram:
(i) 各项法律/政府政策: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeGroup
(ii) 雇主必知的法律/政府政策: https://t.me/LawAndJusticeEmployer
*Kuek, Ong & Associates. Advocates & Solicitors. No.86-1, Jalan Mahagoni 1, Bandar Botanic, 41200 Klang, Selangor Darul Ehsan. Klang Lawyer. 巴生(吧生)律师楼。#Kuek, Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong & Associates #Kuek Ong Associates #郭汪律师事务所 #郭汪律师楼
#Chinese Lawyer in Malaysia #Malaysia Lawyer #Klang Lawyer #KL Lawyer #divorce lawyer #马来西亚华人律师 #懂华文的律师 #懂华语的律师 #巴生律师 #吧生律师 #KL律师 #吉隆坡律师 #民事诉讼律师 #打官司的律师 #打离婚案的律师 #离婚律师 #懂华文的律师 ##懂华语的律师 #华人律师
Civil Procedure — Summary possession of land — Order for — O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Defendant refused to deliver vacant possession of house to plaintiff as executor and administrator of deceased’s estate — Plaintiff sought for order of summary possession of land — Whether defendant and her child entitled to stay and remain in house — Whether child entitled to deceased’s estate by virtue of the will — Whether defendant contributed to purchase of house — Whether plaintiff entitled for order under O 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 — Whether there was triable issue — Rules of Court 2012 O 89
#没有结婚注册 #私生子 #不是合法太太 #不是合法妻子
