Death without a will presents every legal system with the same fundamental question: who deserves what the deceased left behind? The answer reveals deep assumptions about family, property, and social obligation.

Intestacy rules—the default inheritance schemes that apply when someone dies without valid instructions—vary dramatically across jurisdictions. A surviving spouse in one country might inherit everything. In another, she might receive a modest fixed sum while distant blood relatives claim the bulk of the estate.

These aren't arbitrary differences. They reflect genuine disagreements about whose claims matter most, how family relationships should be valued, and whether property ultimately belongs to individuals or bloodlines. Understanding these variations illuminates not just inheritance law, but how societies define family itself.

The treatment of surviving spouses represents perhaps the starkest divergence in intestacy law. Common law systems historically viewed marriage as creating a partnership, while civil law traditions often prioritized preserving wealth within bloodlines.

In England and Wales, a surviving spouse receives the first £322,000 of the estate absolutely, plus half of any remainder. The other half passes to the deceased's children. If there are no children, the spouse takes everything. This reflects a view of marriage as economic partnership deserving substantial protection.

Germany takes a different approach. The surviving spouse typically receives one-quarter of the estate if the deceased had children, with the remainder divided among descendants. However, the actual share depends on the couple's matrimonial property regime during marriage, creating a complex interplay between family law and succession law.

Louisiana—operating under a civil law tradition within the United States—historically provided surviving spouses with usufruct rather than ownership: the right to use and enjoy property during their lifetime, after which it passed to blood relatives. Recent reforms have strengthened spousal rights, but the tension between marriage-based and bloodline-based claims persists. Islamic inheritance law, applied in many jurisdictions, typically grants widows one-eighth of the estate if there are children, reflecting yet another framework for balancing competing claims.

Takeaway

Spousal inheritance rules reveal whether a society views marriage as creating a new economic unit or as a relationship that should not override blood ties to family wealth.

Beyond spousal shares, intestacy rules must allocate the remainder among blood relatives. Here, systems diverge on which bloodlines matter, how far inheritance should extend, and whether the deceased's family should share with the spouse's family.

Most systems follow some form of parentelic ordering: first descendants, then parents and siblings, then grandparents and their descendants, and so on. But the specifics vary considerably. French law divides the estate among different lines of the family tree, ensuring both paternal and maternal relatives receive shares. German law follows strict parentelic succession but allows closer generations to exclude more distant ones entirely.

The treatment of half-siblings reveals particularly interesting variations. Some jurisdictions treat half-siblings identically to full siblings. Others give full siblings double shares. Still others exclude half-siblings from certain categories of inherited property, particularly land that came from the excluded side of the family.

Chinese succession law, influenced by both traditional practice and socialist ideology, includes an interesting provision: persons who were principal caregivers for the deceased may receive inheritance shares even without blood relationship, while relatives who failed in maintenance obligations may be disqualified. This introduces a functional element into bloodline-based succession, recognizing that biological connection alone may not reflect actual family relationships.

Takeaway

The competition between bloodline and affinity in inheritance law reflects an unresolved tension between treating family as biological fact and family as lived relationship.

Perhaps no aspect of intestacy law generates more controversy than the treatment of relationships that fall outside traditional marriage. Unmarried partners, stepchildren, and other informal family members often discover that decades of shared life count for nothing when intestacy rules apply.

The approaches vary dramatically. Australia and New Zealand extend inheritance rights to de facto partners who meet certain duration and relationship tests, treating long-term cohabitation as functionally equivalent to marriage. England, by contrast, provides no automatic intestacy rights to unmarried partners regardless of relationship length—though they may apply to courts for discretionary provision.

Scotland occupies middle ground, recognizing cohabitants as a distinct legal category with limited claims on intestate estates, though less than spouses receive. Brazil extends inheritance rights to companheiros in stable unions, though the precise shares remain contested.

Stepchildren present additional complications. In most jurisdictions, stepparents have no intestate succession rights to stepchildren's estates, and vice versa—regardless of how the relationship functioned during life. Legal adoption creates inheritance rights, but the formal step remains necessary. Some systems are beginning to recognize de facto parent-child relationships, but this remains exceptional. The gap between legal family and functional family creates hardship that many intestacy systems are only beginning to address.

Takeaway

Intestacy rules often define family more narrowly than social reality, forcing people into formal legal categories to secure inheritance rights that informal relationships cannot provide.

Intestacy rules offer a window into each society's deepest assumptions about family obligation and property rights. The variations aren't merely technical—they reflect genuine philosophical disagreements about whose claims deserve recognition.

For individuals, the practical lesson is clear: if your family situation doesn't fit the traditional mold your jurisdiction's intestacy rules assume, only a will can ensure your wishes prevail. The default rules were designed for typical cases, not for the complexity of actual lives.

For legal reformers, comparative analysis reveals that alternatives exist. Every choice about spousal shares, bloodline priority, and informal relationship recognition represents a decision that other systems have made differently. Understanding those alternatives is the first step toward evaluating whether your jurisdiction's approach serves justice well.