Mauger v Mauger: [2024] JCA 197

Ralph Cyril Mauger (Ralph) died in July 2021. By his will of personal property dated 22 May 2012 (the Will), Ralph left the entirety of his net movable estate to his wife, Pisamai Mauger (the Respondent).

Ralph had two sons (the Sons), Aidan (Aidan) and Craig. The Will left nothing to the Sons. Aidan alleged that various lifetime gifts were made by Ralph to the Respondent that exceeded the disposable third of Ralph’s movable estate. On that basis, Aidan invoked the Jersey customary law doctrine of rapport a la masse so that the moveable property of Ralph’s estate can be distributed according to the Son’s entitlement under the customary law doctrine of légitime (for further information on this, please access our article ‘What is Légitime’ which can be accessed here).

At first instance, the Royal Court held that the Respondent was permitted to rester sur ses avances even if such avances exceeded the disposable third of the estate. A copy of the first instance decision can be found here.  Aidan appealed this decision.

The Court of Appeal considered the position having regard to not only Jersey authorities but also the position in France, as it was noted that the French law concept of réserve héréditaire contained in the French Code Civile took many of its concepts from the pre-revolutionary laws (which included Norman customary law on which Jersey’s légitime originates from).

The historic French law position made clear that an heir was permitted to renounce a succession and retain any lifetime gifts provided such amount did not exceed the disposable portion. It was further noted that this position remains the case in the latest iteration of the Code Civile. The Court of Appeal further noted that there was a decision in French law (referred to as ‘the decision of 1863’) which had to grapple with the very question that the Court of Appeal had to determine, namely what the limit on the retention of lifetime gifts by a renouncing heir. In the decision of 1863, it was held that the limit must not exceed the portion disponible. The Court of Appeal concluded that this must also be the case in Jersey

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Royal Court’s argument that requiring an heir to bring the value of a gift back into the estate might risk bankruptcy. The Court of Appeal held that by accepting a lifetime gift, an heir is accepting an advance against their future entitlement and if the heir has dissipated the assets in circumstances where the heir should know that those assets may be required to be brought into account, the heir must accept the consequences of those actions.