IS DEATH AN INVITATION TO DEADBEATS PUTTING HANDS OUT FOR THE INHERITANCE

There are two events in ones existence which are the most important. The day one is born and the day one dies(hereinafter referred to transition). Those two events represents begining and the begining of the end. Anything in between these two events is the experience of living. Its the universe experiencing living through you and damn, what an honour it is. I once read that to fully understand the experience of living one has to fully understand that they will die. Not might die, or could die, will die, as in it is inevitable that your death is but a corner way. So for one to truly live they have to truly grasp that they will transition. Thats how you maximize the experience that happens between being born and being transition.

During the experience of living, many things happen, things that are suppose to happen, whether you took a left turn or a right turn, and i believe the buddhist call this "your karma". One of things that happen buring the experiencing of living is that one of the person involved in making the physical you, does not want you and basically absents themselve's from your life. They turn into a S tier deadbeat. Its fucked up, because why dont you want me man.

Anyway, you live life in such a condition and you thrive, your thrive beyound your imagination and the imagination of the deadbeat to the point that when you transition, the deadbeat returns with open palms looking to inherit from your gained fortunes while you where alive.

And that brings us perfectly to why we are here. We want to understand what the law says when it comes to a deadbeat parents showing up looking to inherit from your estate in that event that one transitiones without a valid, which im law that is referred to as "Died Intestate". We will first outline the law arround this position and look at how it has been applied in out lived realitiies through a recent court judgment on the situation.

THE LAW: INTESTATE SUCCESSION

The Inestate Sucession Act governs a person reality in the event that they transition without leaving a valid Will. Now in more clearer this law governs the position in the event that you transition without leavin instruction of how you affairs are to be handled.

This law outlines who inherits in transitioned estate once they have transitioned without leaving a Last Will and Testament.

Section 1(1)(d)i of the Intestate Succession Act 81 provides that parents will inherit in equal share if no spouse or descendants(childrent) survive. Basically this entails that if the transitioned, transitions without leaving a valid Will outlining how their estate is to be handled (who gets what) then the law will dictate who gets what. So the mathematics is as follows:

You transition without leaving and had no children, then whatever wealth you left in earth will go to your parents, both of them.

But now the question then becomes, what if my father or mother was a deadbeat my entire life, does the law still require my fruits to be inherited by them upon my death.

Now on the reading of Intestate succession act 81, there isnt an exception. Whether the parent/s was a deadbeat or not, they would qualify to inherit intestate. But, now you need to remember, all out laws must be interepreted within the values of the Constitution which calls for a society based on human dignity, equality and freedom- which are values indicative of the Boni Mores, being the Public policy. And as per public policy it would not be fair and dignified for a parents who has never been involved in a childs life to all of a sudden accure some benefit over the transitioning of that human.

Using Public Policy and common law principle of Indignus, the court was able to qualify that the exception of section 1(1)(d) of the Intestate Succession Act applies to all parents except those unworthy to inherit from the transitioned esate. Deadbeatness being one of those grounds qualifying someone as unworthy and qualifying them from inheriting from the estate. Every matter will be decided on a case by case basis, so it isnt a one size fits all.

For us to better understand, take a dive and analyse the judgment of Jacobs Non and another v Adams and Another(2024-127653) which such judgment was penned by the honorable Snyckers AJ of the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg. This case serves as a seminal study on the evolution of the common law doctrine of unworthiness (indignus) and the interpretation of blood relations under the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987.

Lets begin with the background facts

1. Detailed Background Facts

The litigation arose following the death of Ivan Jacobs, who passed away at the age of 29 due to complications from Covid-19. Ivan died intestate, leaving a net estate valued at R716,070.24. As Ivan had no spouse, no children, and no siblings, the default application of Section 1(1)(d)(i) of the Intestate Succession Act (ISA) dictated that his surviving parents—Kay Priscilla Jacobs (the Applicant) and Selwyn Adams (the First Respondent), would each inherit an equal share of approximately R358,000.

The Applicant, Ivan’s mother and the executrix of his estate, challenged this distribution based on the following history of parental abandonment by Adams:

• Minimal Early Contact: Adams and Jacobs had a brief relationship when she was eighteen. Adams was not present at Ivan's birth and never cohabited with the family.

• Failure of Maintenance: Adams provided some nappies in the first month but essentially disappeared thereafter. Although the Applicant sporadically sought maintenance through the courts during the first year, Adams made only sporadic payments and ultimately "exited stage left, fully and finally" when Ivan was one year old.

• Total Abandonment: For the remaining 28 years of Ivan’s life, Adams had no relationship with his son. Ivan was raised by his mother and her life partner, Phillip McCarthy, who acted as Ivan’s de facto father(step daddy). Ivan's only memory of his father was a chance occasion at a function where they did not speak.

  
  

2. Issues to be Determined

The High Court was tasked with resolving the following legal questions:

• Interpretation of "Parent": Whether the term "parent" in the ISA should be interpreted normatively (based on the quality of the relationship) to exclude a father who abandoned his child.

• Applicability of Wilsnach: Whether the court should follow the precedent set in Wilsnach NO v TM, which allowed a court to declare a person "not to be a parent" for succession purposes.

• The Doctrine of Indignus: Whether the common law power of the court to declare an heir "unworthy" (indignus) to inherit could be extended to cases of extreme parental neglect or abandonment.

• Procedural Fairness: Whether the matter could proceed on an unopposed basis after the Respondent failed to file an answering affidavit despite an initial indication of his intent to oppose.

  
  

3. Legal Principles and Rules Applicable

The matter was governed by an interplay between statutory law and common law:

• Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 (ISA): Specifically Section 1(1)(d)(i), which provides for parents to inherit in equal shares if no spouse or descendants survive. Section 1(2) further clarifies that being born out of wedlock does not affect the capacity to inherit from a blood relation.

• Common Law Doctrine of Indignus: Based on the maxim de bloedige hand erft niet ("the bloody hand does not inherit"), this principle deprives an heir of their right to inherit if they are "unworthy" due to conduct such as killing or defrauding the deceased.

• Public Policy: The court noted that principles of unworthiness are not limited to recognized grounds and can be expanded based on contemporary public policy.

• Children’s Act 38 of 2005: The court contrasted the fluidity of parental rights under this Act with the rigid rules of blood-relation flow under the ISA.

  
  

3.2 Arguments of the Parties

• The Applicant (Jacobs): Initially argued, based on Wilsnach, that Adams was not a "parent" in the legal-normative sense of the ISA due to his total abandonment of his constitutional and parental obligations. Alternatively, the Applicant sought relief under the common law, requesting that Adams be declared indignus(Unworthy) to inherit from Ivan’s estate.

• The Respondent (Adams): While Adams appeared at an initial hearing and indicated he wished to oppose, he failed to file any answering affidavit within the 15-day period directed by the court. Consequently, no formal legal arguments were tendered on his behalf, and the matter was determined on an unopposed basis. Dude went Ghost, just as he was during the life and times of the Ivan.

  
  

4. Court Discussion, Analysis, and Evaluation

The Court (per Honourable Snyckers AJ) provided a rigorous critique of the existing legal trends:

• Rejection of the Wilsnach Interpretation: The court explicitly declined to follow the normative interpretation of "parent" used in Wilsnach. The judge argued that the ISA is concerned with identifying blood relatives to determine the "river of assets" that flows through an estate. Unlike the Children’s Act, which focuses on the "best interests of the child," the ISA requires clear, rigid rules free from "normative assessment" of who is more or less deserving.

• The Best Interests Principle: The court noted that the "best interests of the child" principle applies only to persons under 18. If Ivan had died at age 30, it would be anomalous to use the Children's Act to define his "parents" for succession purposes.

• Evaluation of Abandonment as Unworthiness: While rejecting the redefinition of "parent," the court endorsed the use of the indignus doctrine. The judge found that Adams' conduct—complete and utter abandonment for 29 years—was so "shocking" that it met the threshold for unworthiness based on contemporary public policy.

• Scope of the Ruling: The court carefully distinguished between "lesser forms of abandonment" (e.g., stopping calls on Sundays) and "complete abandonment" from the beginning of a child's life. This judgment applies specifically to the latter.

  
  

5. The Court’s Judgment

The Court made the following order:

1. Selwyn Adams is declared unworthy (indignus) to inherit from the estate of the late Ivan Jacobs.

2. The application to declare Adams "not to be a parent" was dismissed (preserving the literal definition of the ISA while achieving the same practical result via unworthiness).

3. Costs of the application were ordered to be paid out of the estate of the late Ivan Jacobs.

   
   

6. Impact of the Judgment on Lived Realities

This judgment has profound implications for South African society, touching on the intersection of family morality and the law of succession.

Positive Impact

• Protection of Diligent Parents: It ensures that a parent who has shouldered the entirety of the emotional and financial burden of raising a child is not forced to share that child's estate with an absentee parent who contributed nothing.

• Evolution of Public Policy: It reinforces the idea that the law is not blind to "deadbeat" behavior and that the common law can be developed to reflect the community's sense of justice regarding parental responsibility.

• Legal Clarity on "Indignus": It provides a clearer jurisprudential pathway (unworthiness) for solving these disputes without twisting the statutory definition of biological "parents".

Negative Impact

• Potential for Litigation: While the court tried to limit the "floodgates," this ruling may encourage heirs to challenge bequests based on varying degrees of neglect, leading to an increase in estate-related litigation.

• Uncertainty of Thresholds: The judgment leaves "further refinement and drawing of lines" for future cases. This may leave families uncertain about whether "partial neglect" or "reconnection later in life" would still lead to a declaration of unworthiness.

• Burden on the Estate: In this matter, the costs were drawn from the estate, which ultimately reduced the final inheritance of the diligent parent.

Disclaimer: The views and analyses expressed on this blog are for informational and educational purposes only. This site serves as a self-guiding diary intended to facilitate my personal understanding of specific subjects and does not serve as an authoritative reference. Information is provided "as is" without any guarantees of completeness or accuracy. Please consult a local, professionally trained individual in the subject matter or you can conduct your own research for any formal inquiries or professional advice. PSA, dont corner an attorney at a Maza or a Braai on a weekend and consult there. Preferably arrange an appointment with the office