A man convicted of the manslaughter of his wife could not take the full benefit of assets they held jointly, but the High Court ruled that her estate was not entitled to all of them either.
In a judgment delivered on 6 December 2011, Ms Justice Laffoy held that the jointly owned assets accrued to the man by survivorship. She found that half was held on constructive trust for the estate and half for him in his own right. The ruling determined beneficial ownership; it did not settle how the assets would be divided or resolve the outstanding accounts between the parties.
The deceased woman died on 15 December 2008. Her husband was convicted of her manslaughter after a trial in the Central Criminal Court and sentenced to six years and 11 months in prison. He did not appeal. Under section 120 of the Succession Act 1965, he was barred from taking a share in her estate. Her daughter, who was her only child and had reached adulthood, was solely entitled to the residuary estate under the will.
The dispute before the High Court concerned assets held in the couple’s joint names, rather than assets in the deceased woman’s sole name. They included their former family home, Rowan Hill, in Howth; a rented dwelling at Tramway Court in Sutton; two bonds; and two bank accounts. The court was told both properties remained held as joint tenants when she died.
The plaintiffs argued that the public policy rule preventing a person from benefiting from their crime meant the entire value of the joint assets should go to the estate. The defendant accepted at the hearing that he was not entitled to the whole beneficial interest, but argued that the estate and he should each have half, whether through severance or a constructive trust.
The judge found that, under the law applicable when the woman died, the legal title to the properties passed to the surviving joint tenant. She concluded that the joint tenancy was not automatically severed by the death. But the defendant could not use survivorship to obtain the whole beneficial benefit: he held one half for himself and the other half for the estate.
The court rejected the argument that the estate should receive everything, saying it had no power, without legislation, to interfere with the defendant’s existing rights in the jointly held assets. It also declined to decide the need for an inquiry into the parties’ contributions, given their position that the beneficial shares would be equal.
The proceedings were adjourned to allow the parties to try to agree on division of the assets and an account of the defendant’s dealings with them since the death, including rent from the Sutton property. The judge said further court orders or an inquiry could be needed if agreement failed. She also observed that legislation would ideally address co-owned property when one co-owner unlawfully kills another.