Questions

 

Defining and setting a limit on next  of kin
I1    Should Victoria set a limit on next of kin at children of the deceased person’s aunts and uncles (the deceased person’s first cousins),  as recommended by the National Committee?

 

Survivorship
I2    Should Victoria introduce a survivorship requirement of 30 days, for consistency with the National Committee’s recommended approach, the law in New South Wales and Tasmania and the position under  the Wills Act 1997 (Vic)?

 

Entitlements of the deceased person’s partner or partners
I3    Should Victoria increase the partner’s statutory legacy to $350,000, adjusted to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index, as proposed by the National Committee?

I4    Should Victoria increase the partner’s share of the remainder of the estate from  one third to one half, as proposed by the National Committee?

I5    Where the deceased person is survived by multiple partners, but no children (or other issue) who are  entitled to a share on intestacy, should  Victoria adopt provisions, recommended by the National Committee, which allow the estate to be distributed:

      1. by a distribution agreement, or
      2. by a distribution order, or
      3. equally between the parties?

I6    Where the deceased person is survived by multiple partners and children (or other issue) who are  entitled to a share on intestacy, should  both partners be entitled to their own statutory legacy, as well as a share of the remainder?

 

The partner’s right to elect  to acquire an interest in certain property
I7    Should the right of the deceased person’s partner to elect to acquire an interest in the shared home be extended to other property in the estate, as proposed by the National Committee?

 

Entitlements of the deceased person’s children or issue
I8    Should Victoria adopt the approach to entitlements of the deceased person’s children on intestacy recommended by the National Committee?

 

Per stirpes or per  capita distribution
I9    Should Victoria:

      1. retain per capita  distribution and extend its operation so that it applies at each generation to both lineal and collateral relatives when all members of the preceding generation are  deceased, or
      2. abolish  per capita  distribution and apply per stirpes distribution in all cases?

 

Taking benefits into account
I10    Should Victoria abolish the hotchpot rule,  as recommended by the National Committee?

I11    Alternatively, should  Victoria retain and amend its hotchpot provision:

      1. to replace references to advancement and settlement with more modern, simplified terminology?
      2. to extend it beyond the deceased person’s children and their representatives? If hotchpot were extended beyond children of the deceased person, should  it apply to the deceased person’s partner and/or all next of kin?

I12     If Victoria were to abolish the requirement to take benefits received during the deceased person’s life into account (hotchpot), should  it also abolish the requirement to take into account benefits received under  a will on partial intestacy?

I13    If hotchpot is retained and extended beyond children of the deceased person, should  the current requirement to take into account benefits received under  the deceased person’s will on partial intestacy also be extended beyond children of the deceased person?

 

Indigenous intestate estates
I14    Are any statistics available about intestacy of Indigenous people in Victoria?

I15    Are more flexible provisions needed in Victoria for the distribution of Indigenous intestate estates? If so, what form should  those provisions take?

 

Publication Status: 
Publication Process: 
Date Published: 
Thursday, January 24, 2013 - 16:45

Main menu

Back to top