The Forfeiture Rule Explained

• Published date: 14 June 2021
• Subject Matter: Tax, Family and Matrimonial, Family Law, Inheritance Tax
• Law Firm: RFB Legal
• Author: Mr Ronald Fletcher Baker LLP

The Forfeiture Rule

The forfeiture rule is a longstanding legal maxim, later written into law by the Forfeiture Act 1982 (the Forfeiture Act), precluding a person who has unlawfully killed another from benefiting as a result of the killing in certain circumstances. This would generally mean that someone who has been convicted of causing a death would not be able to benefit from the estate of the person who had died.

However, the Forfeiture Act does provide the courts with discretion to modify or exclude the effect of the rule. Kate Farkins, from Ronald Fletcher Baker's Private Client department, examines two recent cases in which applications were made to the court to disapply this rule to assess when it may be appropriate to allow a beneficiary who has unlawfully killed to still inherit.

Amos v Mancini (2020)

In this case Mrs Amos, a 74 year old woman from Wales, was travelling with her husband Mr Amos when she drove into the back of a line of stationary cars. Unfortunately, Mr Amos died in hospital shortly after the accident as a result of serious injuries sustained in the crash.

Mrs Amos was charged with causing death by careless driving to which she pled guilty and she received a suspended prison sentence.

Under Mr Amos's will, his entire estate was left to Mrs Amos, who would also inherit their jointly owned home under the doctrine of survivorship. His will provided that if Mrs Amos did not survive him, '20,000 would go to Ms Mancini who was his daughter from a previous marriage with the residue of the estate being divided equally between Mr Amos's son from his previous marriage and Ms Mancini's daughter. If the forfeiture rule applied, the estate would have been distributed as if Mrs Amos had died before her husband.

When the judge considered the facts of the case (including the fact that Mrs Amos had been driving for an unexpectedly long period of time before the incident occurred), he waived the forfeiture rule deciding that disinheriting Mrs Amos would be 'significantly out of proportion' to her fault. A deciding factor was that neither of the two substitute residuary beneficiaries were objecting to Mrs Amos inheriting her husband's estate. It is also worth noting that the offence for which Mrs Amos was convicted did not exist when the Forfeiture Act was enacted.

Challen v Challen (2020)

Mr and Mrs Challen had a relationship spanning 40 years beginning when Mrs Challen was only 15...