|
Once a deceased estate has been administered and assets distributed, the law generally treats the matter as closed. That presumption of finality underpins estate administration in South Africa. It protects heirs, executors, and third parties from indefinite exposure.
Finality, however, is not absolute. It depends on whether the statutory process was completed lawfully and in good faith. Where that process is compromised, late claims may still find limited traction.
The decisive issue is not whether the estate appears settled, but whether it was finalised in a manner the law will uphold.
An estate is not finalised merely because assets have been sold or beneficiaries have been paid. Legal finalisation occurs only once the statutory administration process under the Master’s supervision has been properly completed.
In estates administered under letters of executorship, this requires:
Payment made before these steps are complete does not confer legal finality. Where disputes arise later, the enquiry focuses on procedural compliance, not on whether the estate was treated as closed in practice.
Smaller estates administered under letters of authority follow a different statutory framework. In those cases, finality is assessed by reference to compliance with the applicable section 18 process rather than full liquidation and distribution account administration.
Advertising the liquidation and distribution account is the mechanism by which the law gives interested parties a fair opportunity to protect their interests.
Once the account is accepted for advertising, notice must be published specifying where the account may be inspected and for how long. The inspection period is fixed, commonly 21 days.
During this window, creditors, heirs, and other affected parties may review the account and lodge objections with the Master.
Advertising does not amount to approval of the account. Its legal weight lies in whether inspection was genuinely possible, objections could be raised, and distribution occurred only after the process ran its course.
If advertising is skipped, defective, or misleading, the protective value of the procedure is undermined. Apparent closure does not cure a failure of notice.
Objections raised during the inspection period are considered by the Master. The executor may be required to respond, provide further information, or amend the account.
Where objections cannot be resolved administratively, they may be referred to a court.
If no objections are lodged, or once objections are resolved and the account is accepted, the executor must distribute the estate strictly in accordance with that account.
Once the inspection period has closed and lawful distribution has occurred, later challenges face a substantially higher threshold.
Courts are reluctant to disturb completed estate administrations. Intervention occurs only where the integrity of the process itself has been compromised.
Where material information was deliberately concealed, finality offers no protection. This includes knowing omission of assets or liabilities or conduct designed to prevent interested parties from becoming aware of the administration.
Errors must be substantive. Minor inaccuracies are insufficient. Intervention is reserved for defects affecting the core of the administration, such as excluded liabilities, distributions contrary to a will, or misapplication of intestate succession rules.
Where statutory notice safeguards were not properly observed, affected parties are not penalised for failing to object. Inadequate advertising or failure to make the account available for inspection may defeat reliance on finality.
Even where these grounds are alleged, courts require clear and persuasive evidence. Dissatisfaction with the outcome alone does not justify reopening an estate.
Once an estate has been properly administered and distributed, it ceases to exist as a pool of assets under an executor’s control.
Ordinary creditor claims can no longer be pursued through estate administration. Late claims may, in limited circumstances, be considered against beneficiaries.
Such exposure is tightly confined. Heirs do not assume personal liability simply because they inherited. Recovery is usually limited to the value received and arises only where a recognised legal basis exists, such as unjustified enrichment following improper distribution.
An executor’s protection against late claims is procedural. Where the statutory process has been followed in full, the executor is generally shielded from personal liability once distribution has occurred.
That protection falls away where the executor acts outside the framework of the Act. Premature distribution, failure to disclose known liabilities, or proceeding despite unresolved objections can expose the executor personally.
The law distinguishes between error and misconduct. Administrative mistakes within an otherwise compliant process seldom give rise to liability. Exposure arises where statutory safeguards are disregarded.
Read: Executor of an Estate - Duties, Risks, and Common Mistakes
Late claims test the administration process, not the perceived fairness of the outcome.
Where statutory safeguards have been observed, finality is decisive. Where they have not, finality may fail.
The dividing line is procedural compliance. Timing, disclosure, and adherence to process determine whether closure is legally secure or merely apparent.
Late claims against a deceased estate test whether the administration process was properly completed, not whether the outcome feels fair after the fact.
In most cases, finality protects executors and beneficiaries. In others, procedural flaws or material omissions may leave the estate, or those involved in its administration, exposed.
Estate administration requires careful attention to timing, compliance, and documentation. Assumptions about closure can be costly if incorrect.
Cornell Horn Attorneys specialise in deceased estate administration. Please contact us to find out more.
Get the latest updates in your email box automatically.
Your nickname:
Email address:
Subscribe
Contact Us