Back
2021 MarsdenLR 270
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN AH LAK & CO – Appellant
Versus
TAN GHEE SENG @ JOHNNY TAN & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-24NCvC-484-03/2021]
The court affirmed that estate assets must be managed by the executor until fully administered, dismissing claims for direct distribution to beneficiaries as invalid.
Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 – Section 68 – Interpleader proceedings regarding estate distribution – The Applicant sought a ruling on the distribution of RM1,863,017.76 between the First Respondent, executor of the estate, and other beneficiaries claiming entitlement. The court reaffirmed the executor's role in administering the deceased's assets in accordance with the will. (Paras 22-30)
(B) Powers of Attorney Act – Section 6 – Examination of power of attorney validity post-deceased – The court determined that powers of attorney held by Betty Tan automatically revoked upon her mother's death, thus denying her the authority to manage the estate or claim funds. (Paras 34-36)
(C) Application for direct payment to beneficiaries – The court ruled that beneficiaries do not have a legitimate claim to estate assets until after full administration and rebuffed the notion of inter vivos gifts suggested by the Respondents. (Paras 24, 27-28)
Facts of the case: The Applicant, representing Conchita, sought a direction on RM1,863,017.76 to be paid to either the executor or beneficiaries. Confusion arose from multiple wills and disputes over prior asset distribution agreements. (Paras 1-31)
Findings of Court: The court determined that the sum should be released to the First Respondent as executor due to unresolved estate issues and beneficiary agreements on property status. (Paras 22-30)
Issues: The main issue was to whom the depreciation funds should be paid, determined against the backdrop of conflicting claims concerning the validity of wills and the execution of the estate. (Paras 20-30)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that all estate claims must go through the executor until full administration, invalidating assertions of premature beneficiary rights. Powers of Attorney terminate post-death unless specified otherwise. (Paras 24-29)
Result: The sum of RM 2,089,151.72 with interest shall be paid to the First Respondent as the executor of the estate; no costs ordered. (Para 42)
JUDGMENT
A. Introduction
[1] This is an interpleader application sought by the Applicant, a law firm in the name of Messrs Tan Ah Lak & Co, filed in accordance with O 17 of the Rules of 2012.
[2] The Applicant seeks direction from this Court as to who should the sum of RM1,863,017.76 be paid to.
[3] There are two opposing camps claiming that the said sums of monies should be paid to. The First Respondent is the executor of the estate of the deceased, Yang Chan Seng @ Conchita Yang claims that the said sums of monies should be paid into the accounts of the estate. Whereas the other Respondents who are the beneficiaries of the estate, claims that the said sums should be paid to them.
B. Material Facts
[4] The Applicant was appointed as the solicitors for the late Yang Chan Seng @ Conchita Yang ("Conchita").
[5] During the lifetime of Conchita, she had appointed the 2nd Respondent ("Betty Tan") as her representative and two (2) Power of Attorneys were issued in favour of Betty Tan. These were the Power of Attorneys dated 15 March 1989 and 18 June 2008.
[6] During Conchita's lifetime, she had also sold her property at No 56, Jalan University 46200, Petaling Jaya, Selangor for the sum of RM5,500,000.00. The Applicant was appointed as the solicitors handling the said transaction on behalf of Conchita. This can be seen in the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 6 January 2014 between Conchita and one Tan Geok Lan that was exhibited by the Applicant as part of Exhibit TAL-1.
[7] Conchita had passed away on 22 December 2015.
[8] The said sums of RM1,863,017.76 were part of the proceed of the sale of the above property. The said sums were paid into the account of Betty Tan.
[9] It is Betty Tan's contention that said funds were given to her while her mother was alive. She alleged that these funds were given to her as her mother's attorney and as her daughter.
[10] The First Respondent was however appointed as the executor of the estate of the deceased. A grant of probate was issued to the First Respondent based on the terms of the will of the deceased. The other Respondents had renounced their right to act as executor or as executrix of the estate. This grant of probate was issued in accordance with the will dated 23 October 2007. It also appears that the beneficiaries agreed that the First Respondent shall act as the sole executor of the said estate.
[11] Betty Tan subsequently informed the First Respondent that there exists a second will dated 31 August 2015. Therefore, there is an issue that ought to be determined before the appropriate Court as to which will should be utilized for the purposes of the distribution of the assets of the estate to the beneficiaries. This issue however is not an alive issue before me, and I find that it is inappropriate for this Court to decide on this issue.
[12] All of the beneficiaries of the estate agreed that the said sums held by Betty Tan were to be deposited into the solicitors account of the Applicant. The terms of which were stated in the letter dated 11 August 2016, the material terms of which are reproduced herein:
a) Memegang Baki dari hartanah No 56 tersebut sebanyak RM5,605,517.38 "... for distribution to the 9 beneficiaries in accordance with the Will."
b) Memegang Baki didalam simpanan Bank sebanyak RM1,082,146.94 "...for distribution to the 13 beneficiaries in accordance with the Will".
[13] There appears to be an ongoing dispute between the beneficiaries. The 2nd to 4th Respondents gave instructions to the Applicant not to release their allotted shares from the proceeds of the estate kept in the stakeholder account to the First Respondent. This appears in the letter dated 3 September 2016. This was also repeated in the correspondences dated 6 June 2017, 4 January 2019, 7 January 2019 and statutory declaration dated 8 March 2019.
[14] The material parts of the letter dated 3 September 2016 issued by the 4 Respondents to the Plaintiff are as follows:
"We note that funds are held by
