₦airaland Forum

Why MUST YOU INHERIT EVERYTHING? Where you there when he was building his wealth? What happens to his other family and kids?

LawWithEbele:
Lawyer, can I inherit everything if my husband dies without a will?

Many women think the answer is yes.
The law says no.

If he married under the Marriage Act, that is statutory marriage, his estate will be shared according to the relevant provisions of the Administration of Estate of the Deceased Law between wife and children.

The wife gets 1/3 of the estate.
The children gets 2/3 of the estate.
The wife has only life interest in the 1/3 she got. This simply means that she cannot sell or part with it. If she remarries, she loses everything to the husband's estate.

If he married under Customary Law the customary law will decide who gets what. His family may even claim a large part.

If he married under Islamic Law his estate is divided strictly by Qur’anic rules.

One fact is clear: a wife does not automatically inherit all.

That is why every man should make a will.It protects his wife, his children, and his legacy.

I am Ebelechukwu Aroh, the Nigerian family and property lawyer.I help you protect what you cannot afford to lose- your land, your legacy, and your family.

#arohnwokaebelechukwu #ebelechukwulawfirm #propertylawyernigeria

AustineE1:
I hope no lady is planning to off the husband...
However how about a woman who happens to be very rich, when she dies, can the husband inherit all her properties if she doesn't have a will?

Lawyer, please provide and answer to this question, as Men are now refusing to die before their wives.

Can the Husband automatically inherit all his Wife has, if she dies without a WILL?

NB: I have not scrolled through all replies, so forgive me, if you have responded already

TheStranger:
If you and your husband happened to have a registry wedding, then yes

This Registry Wedding is what is referred to as 'Marriage under the Matrimonial Act' (or simply Marriage under the Act).
So, the answer is as the Lawyer has explained above, such Wife can only get 1/3 of her Husband's Properties for her Personal use only (cant sell, cant transfer!) and the wife will have to surrender them, at death.

DIVINEEVIDENCE:
So, if I marry a woman today, she'll settle it in her mind that I'll die before her?


Tufia!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

LawWithEbele:
Lawyer, can I inherit everything if my husband dies without a will?

Many women think the answer is yes.
The law says no.

If he married under the Marriage Act, that is statutory marriage, his estate will be shared according to the relevant provisions of the Administration of Estate of the Deceased Law between wife and children.

The wife gets 1/3 of the estate.
The children gets 2/3 of the estate.
The wife has only life interest in the 1/3 she got. This simply means that she cannot sell or part with it. If she remarries, she loses everything to the husband's estate.

If he married under Customary Law the customary law will decide who gets what. His family may even claim a large part.

If he married under Islamic Law his estate is divided strictly by Qur’anic rules.

One fact is clear: a wife does not automatically inherit all.

That is why every man should make a will.It protects his wife, his children, and his legacy.

I am Ebelechukwu Aroh, the Nigerian family and property lawyer.I help you protect what you cannot afford to lose- your land, your legacy, and your family.

#arohnwokaebelechukwu #ebelechukwulawfirm #propertylawyernigeria

Coincidentally, I made a presentation on Death benefit - WILL yesterday at my office.

Let’s also add that Dying without a will (called "dying intestate", the government decides who gets your things based on local laws.
This can cause delays, extra costs, family disagreements, and stress. People may need to get a legal paper called a letter of administration to manage your estate, but getting it can take a long time.

Prevention is better than cure.
Get a Will today!

This woman should be investigated.

Please anyone that knows her husband should tell him to run for his life.

madam want to put otapiapia in his food

sirsholley:
Why must your husband die before you? Abi kinnin wahala gan?

In Nigeria, it is no hidden secret that husbands — either naturally or unnaturally — bite it before wives do. So, it makes sense that the question should be asked.

You wan kill ur husband?

One thing I hate about nairaland comment section. Is that 70% of comment are off track. They either come to insult thierselfs, or argue.
Imagine most comments are being focused on
Why does the man have to die first?

Now about this topic thanks OP for enlightening me on this, I never knew nothing about this.

LawWithEbele:
Lawyer, can I inherit everything if my husband dies without a will?

Many women think the answer is yes.
The law says no.

If he married under the Marriage Act, that is statutory marriage, his estate will be shared according to the relevant provisions of the Administration of Estate of the Deceased Law between wife and children.

The wife gets 1/3 of the estate.
The children gets 2/3 of the estate.
The wife has only life interest in the 1/3 she got. This simply means that she cannot sell or part with it. If she remarries, she loses everything to the husband's estate.

If he married under Customary Law the customary law will decide who gets what. His family may even claim a large part.

If he married under Islamic Law his estate is divided strictly by Qur’anic rules.

One fact is clear: a wife does not automatically inherit all.

That is why every man should make a will.It protects his wife, his children, and his legacy.

I am Ebelechukwu Aroh, the Nigerian family and property lawyer.I help you protect what you cannot afford to lose- your land, your legacy, and your family.

#arohnwokaebelechukwu #ebelechukwulawfirm #propertylawyernigeria

The answer is YES and NO..
YES : if you get hold of all the documents...
NO : If you don't have access to all the documents and then definitely your Husband's family will come to claim properties they know nothing about

yes but you must bring reasonable financial provision to dependants meaning that the money must be seen to have been used in providing for your needs shortly before he died

DEROX:
yes but you must bring reasonable financial provision to dependants meaning that the money must be seen to have been used in providing for your needs shortly before he died

HUh?

Kobojunkie:
HUh?

Am talking based on law points, It must show that the testator has been using the money to take care of you, and your survival depends on the money, if you dont understand now juz leave it.

DEROX:
➜Am talking based on law points, It must show that the testator has been using the money to take care of you, and your survival depends on the money, if you dont understand now juz leave it.

Must show? Where is this stated? Let's see it since you claim a better understanding of the law.

Kobojunkie:
Must show? Where is this stated? Let's see it since you claim a better understanding of the law.

Read section 2 wills law of lagos state and leave me for life you can also see the case of Aguocha v aguocha , Infact why i go dey argue with woman sef shame on me.

DEROX:
➜Read section 2 wills law of lagos state and leave me for life you can also see the case of Aguocha v aguocha ,
➜ Infact why i go dey argue with woman sef shame on me.

What the? The OP is about the Nigerian legal code naw! When Lagos state come become Nigeria, abeg?

2. Na woman cause you make you dey argue like tambolo abi wetin?

** Below is the complete entry in Section 2 of the WILLS LAW CHAPTER W2 LAWS OF LAGOS STATE. What part of it did you quote in your previous comment?

Kobojunkie:
What the? The OP is about the Nigerian legal code naw! When Lagos state come become Nigeria, abeg?

2. Na woman cause you make you dey argue like tambolo abi wetin?

** Below is the complete entry in Section 2 of the WILLS LAW CHAPTER W2 LAWS OF LAGOS STATE. What part of it did you quote in your previous comment?

I think the head should not only wear wigs without it being smart Now the person who opened the thread said Can she inherit her husbands property without a will, The (a) part of the thing you rushed to screen shot what was it talking about but I cant argue with non lawyers anyway, And you should also check the wills act 1837, oyo state wills law, abia state wills act, It is all in them even in kaduna only that abia own doesn't have Islamic restriction woo leave me, you quoted me first I should have ignored

DEROXMAN:
➜I think the head should not only wear wigs without it being smart Now the person who opened the thread said Can she inherit her husbands property without a will, The (a) part of the thing you rushed to screen shot what was it talking about but I cant argue with non lawyers anyway, And you should also check the wills act 1837, oyo state wills law, abia state wills act, It is all in them even in kaduna only that abia own doesn't have Islamic restriction woo leave me, you quoted me first I should have ignored

This here is the statement you made earlier.

DEROX:
yes but you must bring reasonable financial provision to dependants meaning that the money must be seen to have been used in providing for your needs shortly before he died

And you mentioned the Will of Lagos as a source for the assertion, which I then posted. Here's an AI digest of what Section 2 basically says, since you don't seem to be in agreement with it.

This statement describes a legal provision allowing certain individuals to challenge a deceased person's will, even if the will was legally validly made.
Here's a breakdown:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of the section 1 of the Law": This signifies that this provision overrides or acts as an exception to the general rule stated in Section 1 of the Law (which likely grants the deceased a high degree of freedom in disposing of their estate through their will).
"where a person dies and is survived by any of the following persons —(a) the wife or wives or huband or the deceased; and (b) a child or children of the deceased": This defines the group of people (spouses and children) who can potentially make such a claim.
"that person or those persons may apply to the court for an order on the ground that dispositon of the deceased estate effected by the will is not such to make reasonable provision for the applicant": This is the core of the provision. It means that the surviving spouse(s) or children can ask the court to intervene if they believe the will doesn't provide adequately for their financial needs, according to LegalZoom.

Essentially, this clause acts as a safeguard. Even if a will is otherwise legally sound, if it leaves a spouse or child in a financially precarious situation, they may have legal recourse to request the court to modify the will's terms to ensure they receive a reasonable share of the estate. This concept is often referred to as "family provision" or "dependency claims" in some jurisdictions. It balances the principle of testamentary freedom (the deceased's right to dispose of their property as they choose) with the idea that certain family members should be reasonably provided for.

What are you getting unnecessarily triggered when all you need to do here is provide a reference for the claim you made? The Law says nothing of showing that money was used the way you describe so where do you get that idea from?

Kobojunkie:
This here is the statement you made earlier. And you mentioned the Will of Lagos as a source for the assertion, which I then posted. Here's an AI digest of what Section 2 basically says, since you don't seem to be in agreement with it.

What are you getting unnecessarily triggered when all you need to do here is provide a reference for the claim you made? The Law says nothing of showing that money was used the way you describe so where do you get that idea from?

Has she yet proved that in court? So can you just throw away her claim like that? Am telling you what is obtainable and you are using AI we don't do that in law we use legal principles and decided facts that's why I referred to the other case *aguocha v aguocha* same thing happened there between a mother in law and daughter in law where the man died

DEROXMAN:
➜Has she yet proved that in court? So can you just throw away her claim like that?
➜Am telling you what is obtainable and you are using AI we don't do that in law we use legal principles and decided facts that's why I referred to the other case *aguocha v aguocha* same thing happened there between a mother in law and daughter in law where the man died

. Prove what? The excerpt—Section 2 of the Will of Lagos — which I also used AI to simplify for the benefit of you and anyone else paying attention clearly DOES SHOW require she prove anything of the such which you mentioned. So, why do you keep insisting on this?

2. Who had to do this proving, which you claim in this case *aguocha v aguocha* when the Law makes no such stipulation? Here, the Law says absolutely nothing about a wife or children needing to provide proof of the kind you describe. Yet you keep insisting that the Judge in one particular case did it regardless. Can you really not see how I find that weird and continue to insist you find a reference to where such a provision is made in the Law?

DEROX:
yes but you must bring reasonable financial provision to dependants meaning that the money must be seen to have been used in providing for your needs shortly before he died

This makes no sense!

Kobojunkie:
This here is the statement you made earlier. And you mentioned the Will of Lagos as a source for the assertion, which I then posted. Here's an AI digest of what Section 2 basically says, since you don't seem to be in agreement with it.

What are you getting unnecessarily triggered when all you need to do here is provide a reference for the claim you made? The Law says nothing of showing that money was used the way you describe so where do you get that idea from?

State thos junk AI shit before any high court in nigeria and send me the ruling let's see

DEROX:
✓ State thos junk AI shit before any high court in nigeria and send me the ruling let's see

I am not at all shocked, actually. I read the Supreme Court decision last year on what it referred to as LGA autonomy, and I immediately knew Nigeria was toast. With that caliber of reason now the norm, I see how common sense will be hard to find in that jungle. (For that country to change, all previous legal rulings need to be completely trashed.) 🥱🥱🥱

Imagine a supposed lawyer vehemently arguing for that which does not follow the law, in the year 2025, at that. Na wa oo😩😩😩😩

Why don't you advice women to do same to protect her husband and children? You lot make assertions aa if women are the less privileged members of the society incapable to make wealth on their own.

Caaz:
Because men are the head,hence the reason why they kaput first,so the woman can train the kids
Beside a good and thoughtful husband would always pray to kpai before his wife

So if the woman dies first the man won't train the kids? Men die first mainly because of the age gap and then the life span of men is shorter due to risks men take.

alabo1:
Men are usually older than their wives in these climes. Like me I am 11 years older than my wife. in such a scenario who should go first? It is in the western world where people of same age tend to marry.

That's correct, 80% of the time the age comes into effect while 20% of the time unforseen effect takes control. Women never for once ever thinks they can get sick and die it's always the man

This is why most ladies don't even try their best to uplift the family through their little effort, it must be the man. This is why most who lost their husbands start having financial issues after the demise.

Do most ladies even have a will? Once you have assets you should have one but most don't see it as a duty to will those assets because in their mind the husband hasn't died so it's not yet my turn to die

Kobojunkie:
I am not at all shocked, actually. I read the Supreme Court decision last year on what it referred to as LGA autonomy, and I immediately knew Nigeria was toast. With that caliber of reason now the norm, I see how common sense will be hard to find in that jungle. (For that country to change, all previous legal rulings need to be completely trashed.) 🥱🥱🥱

Imagine a supposed lawyer vehemently arguing for that which does not follow the law, in the year 2025, at that. Na wa oo😩😩😩😩

You cant even stand the supposed lawyer one on one but everybody is a dragon online enjoy

DEROX:
Y✓ You cant even stand the supposed lawyer one on one but everybody is a dragon online enjoy

Yet I have not only lived with but extensively debated an attorney here in the U.S for many years now? 😩😩😩

What is obviously with people such as yourself is that the meaning of the phrase, " The Law is made for the people and not the people for the Law," literally flies over your heads. No wonder Nigerians are suffering immensely. 😩😩😩

Kobojunkieee:
Yet I have not only lived with but extensively debated an attorney here in the U.S for many years now? 😩😩😩

What is obviously with people such as yourself is that the meaning of the phrase, " The Law is made for the people and not the people for the Law," literally flies over your heads. No wonder Nigerians are suffering immensely. 😩😩😩

and you so absolved in mediocrity that you cant decipher truth from fabrication, Am telling you what is obtainable you are believing your half baked assertion pls juz do whatever ko matter what you say again This is The END

Kobojunkie:
. Prove what? The excerpt—Section 2 of the Will of Lagos — which I also used AI to simplify for the benefit of you and anyone else paying attention clearly DOES SHOW require she prove anything of the such which you mentioned. So, why do you keep insisting on this?

2. Who had to do this proving, which you claim in this case *aguocha v aguocha* when the Law makes no such stipulation? Here, the Law says absolutely nothing about a wife or children needing to provide proof of the kind you describe. Yet you keep insisting that the Judge in one particular case did it regardless. Can you really not see how I find that weird and continue to insist you find a reference to where such a provision is made in the Law?
This makes no sense!

I have read @Derox and @kobojunkie.
In my opinion, l think what both of you are on-about, is whether "she needs (or any family member) to prove she is a (they are ) dependent.
If my statement above is the issue, l will surmise that the basis of anyone filing a Claim to vary such Will, will be based on the fat that they consider the Will unfavorable to them and executing it "as it is", will put them in a bad position.

Now, why will they feel so, a Judge may ask?
Response in such cases, as we have seen in similar situation of Divorce (which is also a form of 'inheritance claim' by Wives, is that they are dependent on the fortunes of the man (husband) and not giving them what they sort, will make life impossible for them.

In such cases, as is trite in law, the "Burden of Proof", is on the Person who makes an assertion.

So, l think that the Family member that is trying to introduce a variation into a Perfect and properly written Will, will have to "Prove beyond Doubt" to the Judge, that their claim is valid and should be entertained.

The alternative will be a situation where anyone can just stand-up to challenge a valid Will, just because they want a Cut of the deceased Assets....... something which negates the whole idea of a Will (to determine how and who gets your Assets after death).

For example: A Child that is in School might say if the Will is executed "as it is", S/he wont be able to further their Education as they wont have the Resources, bearing in mind that it was the Deceased (his/her Father) that has been responsible for paying for their Education, while alive.

Proof?: (1)Past payment Slips showing that the Deceased was the one paying Tuition and other Fees.
(2) Showing that the Claimant has no alternative means (or even less accessible means) of paying such School expenses.

So, there will always be need to PROVE a Claim that seeks to vary what has already been set in stone.