遺産の処理と管理は複雑な問題であり、どこから手をつけるべきか分からない方々も多いはずです。大切な方の死はとても受け入れがたいことであり、遺産を処理するための書類探しや適切な手続についての情報収集に奔走するような余裕は本来ありません。私たちは日々、このようなストレスに苛まれるクライアントの皆様を目の当たりにします。そこで、本記事では、遺言書を検認し遺産を管理するためのプロベート取得の通常の手続を、段階ごとに要約しました。この記事が、よりスムーズな手続進行の一助になれば幸いです。

ステップ1:死亡の登録

被相続人の死亡後は、まず出生死亡登録官に死亡の旨を登録し、死亡証明書を取得します。死亡証明書を取得するには、死因を記載した診断書を提出する必要があります。

ステップ2:葬儀の手配

死亡証明書を取得した後、葬儀の手配を始めることができます。

遺言書がある場合は、後述のとおり、遺言執行者として遺言書に記載された方が、葬儀を手配する責任を負います。被相続人は、遺言により、埋葬又は火葬を希望する旨の意思を表示することができます。遺言執行者は、葬儀の手配にあたり、このような希望を考慮に入れるべきです。

葬儀の手配および遺体の処理に要する費用は、被相続人の遺産から支払われます。しかし、遺産承弁署から権限が与えられていないため、通常、この早い段階で被相続人の遺産を処理することは認められていません。したがって、実際には、被相続人の家族がそれらの費用を支払い、代理権の付与を得た後、それらの費用が遺産から払い戻されます。

ステップ3:遺言書の捜索と貸金庫の調査 

被相続人の遺言があったかどうか、そして、遺言があった場合は、それが最新の遺言か、後に取り消されたかどうかを慎重に確認する必要があります。(このステップは、被相続人の家族が、葬儀の手配を取りまとめる遺言執行者がいるかどうかを知るために、早めに行うこともあります。)

遺言書を捜すためには、被相続人の個人的書類を確認したり、被相続人の家族に確認したりすることから始めることができます。被相続人の貸金庫もチェックしなければならない場合もあります。

貸金庫を開披するために、下記の方が、民政事務総署長に対し、貸金庫の調査依頼証書の交付を申請することができます。

1. 遺言執行者又は複数の遺言執行者のうち一名
2. 遺産を管理する権限を与えられた者
3. 貸金庫が被相続人と他人と共同で賃借されている場合は、生存する借主

調査依頼証書を取得した後、証書の所持者は、民政事務局長および銀行と、貸金庫の調査のための面談を設定すべきです。

貸金庫の中から遺言書が見つかり、遺言書において調査依頼証書の所持者が遺言執行者に指名されている場合、または所持者が貸金庫の生存する借主の場合、所持者は、遺言書の写しを取り、その写しを貸金庫に返却した後、遺言書を取り出すことができます。所持者は、貸金庫の内容物の目録も作成するべきです。

遺言書がない場合、または、遺言書がある場合でi) 貸金庫の調査依頼証書の所持者が遺言執行者ではない場合、もしくはii) 遺言執行者が遺言書の中で指名されておらず、証書の所持者が貸金庫の生存する借主でない場合には、銀行員は、遺言書(もしあれば)の写しを入手し、その写しを公務員に渡した後に、直ちに貸金庫を閉鎖すべきです。

なお、調査中は、遺言書(もしあれば)を除いて、貸金庫から物品を取り出さないようにご留意ください。

ステップ4:代理権の付与の取得 

その後、被相続人の資産を処理するためには、通常、代理権の付与を受けることが必要です。

被相続人が、遺言執行者を選任する遺言を残して亡くなった場合、遺言執行者は、プロベートの付与を申請すべきです。被相続人が、有効な遺言を残さずに亡くなった場合(例えば、遺言書が発見されなかった、遺言書が取り消された等)、妻や子のような、権利を有する者は、遺産管理状の付与を申請すべきです。

遺産管理状の付与申請は、高等法院遺産承弁署に対して、下記の根拠書類を含む特定の書式で行います。

1. 遺言執行者/遺産管理人による確約または宣誓供述書;
2. 資産および負債の一覧表を証明する確約または宣誓供述書、被相続人の死亡日時点の香港における資産および負債の一覧表ならびにその他根拠書類 (例えば、被相続人の死亡証明書、被相続人の遺言書、申請者と被相続人の関係を示す証明書、申請手数料等)

申請を行った後、遺産承弁署は、さらなる情報の入手または明確化のために、申請について追加要請を出すことができます。遺産承弁署がその追加要請に対する回答に満足した場合、遺産管理状が発行されます。

ステップ5:遺産の分配 

遺産管理状の付与を受けた後、遺産の個人代理人(遺言における遺言執行者または遺言がない場合は選任された遺産管理人)は、まず、被相続人の遺産から資産を回収した後、遺産に関連する被相続人の債務の弁済、葬式その他の費用の支払いを行う必要があります。その後、遺産は適宜分配することができます。

有効な遺言がない場合、遺産管理人は、無遺言遺産条例に従って遺産を分配すべきです。相続権の順位は、生存する親族と被相続人との関係によって決まります。無遺言死亡法のもとでは、被相続人と直接血縁関係にある方のみが利益を与え、未婚のパートナー、継子(養子縁組をしない限り)および姻族には利益が与えられないことに留意すべきです。

例えば、被相続人が配偶者のみを残して死亡し、子、父母またはその他の近しい親族がいない場合、生存する配偶者は、被相続人の残りの遺産の全てを取得する権利を有します。別の例として、被相続人が配偶者と子を残して死亡した場合、生存する配偶者は、被相続人の全ての個人的な動産および残りの財産から合計500,000香港ドルを取得する権利を有し、その後、残余財産がある場合は半分に分割され、被相続人の生存する配偶者と子との間で均等に分配されます。

他方で、有効な遺言がある場合、遺言執行者は、遺言における被相続人の希望に従って遺産を分配すべきです。部分的な無遺言(すなわち、被相続人の資産を完全には処分しない旨の遺言がある場合)がある場合、それらの未処分の資産の分配については、無遺言遺産条例により規律されることになります。

おわりに 

上記は、ある方が亡くなった後の問題および被相続人の遺産の処理のプロセスを簡単に要約したものにすぎません。実際には、プロベートを得て遺産を管理するあらゆる段階において、複雑な問題が生じることがあります。上記に関するご不明点がある場合、または当事務所のプロベート・エステートプランニングについてご興味・ご関心がある場合は、当事務所のチームメンバーにご連絡ください。 

本記事は情報提供のみを目的としています。本記事の内容は、法律上の助言を構成するものではなく、本記事をもって個々の事例における詳細な助言に代替されるとみなされることがないことにご留意ください。

2021年3月

What can be done if there are disputes over the validity of a will or the administrator of the estate? Provided that the ‘Grant of representation’ has not yet been issued by the Hong Kong Probate Registry, which would indicate that it has already validated the will, a concerned party may enter a ‘Caveat’. This will ensure that the “Caveator’, that is the person who lodges the caveat, will be informed if any application is made for the issue of a grant of representation.

While the existence of a caveat may indicate there are genuine concerns in a probate or administration process and therefore a sign of potential disputes, the effect of entering a caveat is not necessarily contentious in itself. Nevertheless, caveat proceedings do start when a caveat is lodged with the Probate Registry against an estate of a Deceased. The Probate Registry only process non-contentious applications for grant. If the application has become “contentious”, the contention must be resolved first. In theory, the entering of a caveat can be contentious, and the caveat must be dealt with first before the application can be processed further.

A caveat is a notice preventing a grant of representation being issued by the Registry without notice to the caveator. Some of the common reasons to enter a caveat are:-

•    To allow more time for the caveator to make enquiries, obtain further information or evidence to:

o    Oppose proof of a will
o    Challenge the validity of a will
o    Oppose the issue of the grant of representation to the person entitled
o    Ascertain entitlement where there is no will (the deceased died intestate)

•    To act as a preliminary step to a probate action, or to citation (for more information, see our article on citations)
•    To be a first step in an application by people who have equal entitlement to the grant of representation

Once entered, a caveat remains in force for 6 months from the date of entry and then automatically ceases to have effect, unless withdrawn or removed prior to such date. There is no limitation to the number of further caveats and extensions that can be made. 

How to Handle a Caveat?

Issuing of any grant of representation shall not be allowed if the Probate Registry has knowledge of an effective caveat. Where an effective caveat is in place, the applicant for grant of the relevant estate would be asked by the Registrar to deal with the caveat. This can sometimes come as a surprise to grant applicants as they may not have been previously aware of the caveat.

Depending on the circumstances, there are various ways of handling an estate with a caveat. In any event, given the many potential contentious issues that may arise and the sensitive nature of probate or administration in general, legal advice should be sought and the matter should always be handled with care.

A caveat can only be removed:-

•    By withdrawal of the caveat by the caveator giving notice at the Probate Registry, as long as an appearance to a warning has not been entered
•    By the non-appearance of a caveator to the warning to caveator
•    By an order of the High Court that the caveat does cease to have effect and a grant of representation be issued
•    By the expiration of 6 months form the date of entry or effective extension

It may be worrying to discover that a caveat has been lodge, but it is not unusual to find occasions where the caveat process is misused and caveats are simply lodged to stall for time, or even where parties have no grounds to contest a will or the administration of an estate. Where there is no valid reason to lodge a caveat, there could be costs consequences for the caveator. 

Whether you discovered a caveat or you are thinking of entering one, it should be reminded that caveat proceedings are by nature contentious and can well be the start of a litigation. Any step taken after the commencement of a caveat proceedings could cause legal consequences, including costs. It is therefore recommended that you seek independent legal advice before taking any step in dealing with a caveat.

If you have any questions regarding the above or would like to obtain further information on our probate and estate planning services, please feel free to contact our Probate and Estate Planning team.  

This article is for information purposes only. Its contents do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this article as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

February 2021

How early advice can significantly mitigate future costs

It is deep rooted in Chinese culture that all family problems should be resolved within ‘the four walls’, perfectly illustrated by the old adage ‘Do not wash your dirty linen in public’. Often families and private wealth managers find it daunting to contact lawyers, and when a problem eventually (as a last resort) reaches the legal advisor it is most likely to have evolved into a disastrous problem that could cost a significant part, if not all, of the family’s wealth to fix it. This bulletin seeks to provide practical pointers on the legal ringfences that could be put into place at the early stages to avoid such future nightmares.

Structure formation

A diverse range of services and products are being marketed to and consumed by high-net-worth individuals and families in Hong Kong. Hong Kong remains the hub for a large number of super-rich individuals and families with private wealth, predominantly comprising of easily investable assets, most of which is held in private trusts, the primary vehicle used for wealth and estate planning. This may sound simple but as the pool of high-net-worth individuals expands, wealth and estate planners in Hong Kong are seeing increasing demand from second and third tier wealthy individuals for sophisticated planning, particularly for intergenerational transmission of wealth, succession for family-owned businesses and long-term philanthropic goals.

Clients’ preference (or in many cases, preference of their service provider), and legacy reasons are often the governing factors for selecting structures and jurisdictions. However, poorly designed structures and inappropriate choice of jurisdictions could lead to drastic compliance issues, immobility of assets, unnecessary administrative costs, or impediments to business operations. It is therefore important to work closely with legal advisors to frame appropriate structures at the most suitable jurisdiction, based on the following key factors:

1.    Specific needs of the beneficiaries

The relevant questions include:

a)    Whether on-going support is required and for how long (e.g., for minor and old age beneficiaries)? In that case, what is the best way to ensure part of the assets remains mobile?

b)    Is it necessary to have segregated wealth portfolios, and if so, would an offshore fund be suitable?

c)    Is there any specific jurisdictional matter (e.g., a US citizen issue) that warrants more protection for certain beneficiaries?

d)    Do they have any role in the family business? Are conflicts from wearing multiple hats foreseeable if a private trust company will be used? 

2.    Tax efficiency

Entities and activities in popular offshore jurisdictions (such as BVI and Cayman) do not attract tax, which is ideal for those who require their assets to be easily transferrable, coupled with a high level of confidentiality concerning ownership. In Hong Kong, while there is no capital gain tax for local entitles, profits arising in or derived from trading activities, a profession, or business undertakings carried out in the city are subject to profits tax. Therefore, remuneration or profits, even via offshore vehicles, received by a related Hong Kong entity in the structure might still be taxable.

Another aspect of tax consideration is the potential personal liability of individual beneficiaries, especially in receiving distributions.

3.    Compliance issues

With the joint effort to combat money laundering and financial crimes globally, it is impossible to avoid compliance requests – from provisions of basic personal particulars to details regarding source of funds and income. Terms such as “beneficial ownership”, “economic substance” and “FATCA” make headlines frequently in all popular wealth parking jurisdictions. Selection of a jurisdiction based on the incentive of non-compliance of a reporting duty is unrealistic, as one would simply end up at a jurisdiction with little or no financial and professional infrastructure, and even then, such a jurisdiction would eventually develop and become regulated.

The correct approach towards compliance requests is to ask a legal advisor to map out the actions and information that would be required to fully comply with all reporting duties each year. Logically, the cost of proper planning and preparation would be significantly lower than the cost for handling the consequences of failing to comply with certain duties.   

Key Documents

Trusts have been the default setting for asset protection and succession planning in Hong Kong for many years. Despite understanding the benefits, families are generally not willing to give up their control over the assets and will often seek to reserve certain powers. Recent court cases (e.g. JSC Mezhdunarodniy Promyshlenniy Bank v Pugachev [2017] EWHC 2426 (Ch)) however proved that trusts that are controlled by settlors are vulnerable to attacks, with courts having developed ways to enable third parties (usually creditors or divorcing spouses) to enforce orders against trust assets. 

In contrast, numerous jurisdictions have introduced specific provisions intended to enable the reservation of a wide range of powers by the trustmaker (settlor). A Hong Kong trust will not be invalid solely because the settlor has reserved for themselves the powers of investment or asset management. The statutory protection in Hong Kong however does not include the reservation of powers of revocation or powers to appoint and remove trustees or beneficiaries, which are available in offshore regimes including in Singapore.
 
It is therefore important to understand that all documents must always be drafted in a fact-specific way. However, as a general principle, the key is to reserve only the powers that are necessary for the settlor in question. For example, a settlor who has settled a business into the trusts may wish to retain the power to veto a proposed sale or other disposition of the business. Note, however, if this is combined with other extensive powers such as the power to replace trustees, the right to determine who is to be a member of the beneficial class and, for example, a right of veto over any disposition of trust assets, then it is likely for a Court to say that the settlor has the means to control the disposition of the trust assets and, in practice, to ensure that they have in place trustees who will bend to their will. Another general rule is that retaining the right of veto over actions is likely to be safer than positive powers. By merely being able to prevent actions taking place, a settlor is far less likely to be held as having retained beneficial ownership as they cannot by exercising those powers of veto alone bring about any disposition of the property.

Mitigating litigation risks

Disputes are inevitable and would often put trustees in a conflicted position. Typical contentious scenarios include the spouse of a beneficiary demanding disclosure of details of a trust during a divorce, beneficiaries unable to reach consensus on distribution or disagreement between the trustee and the beneficiaries regarding the dealing of certain assets. 

The idea of taking a matter to court may sound intimidating, but most courts have statutory supervisory jurisdiction to give orders to deal with trust assets. Section 56 of the Hong Kong Trustee Ordinance allows the trustee to make an application to the court for the necessary power to manage or administer property vested in the trustee. This is a relatively narrow jurisdiction when compared to the much wider discretion that the offshore courts may exercise. The author acted for a trustee based in Hong Kong of a Cayman trust to seek an order from the Cayman court pursuant to s.48 of the Trusts Law to sanction a distribution proposal that the beneficiaries could not agree upon. It is therefore a good practice to seek directions from the court which has jurisdiction over the trust during the early stage of a dispute to mitigate the risk of full-blown litigation.  

Conclusion

With the variety and complexity of issues revolving around private wealth management, as highlighted by the questions and scenarios set out above, wealth managers should work closely with legal advisors at early stages of planning, drafting, and also at the first sign of any potential dispute. 

February 2021