Question
Husband passed away leaving behind wife and mature children. Amongst the things left behind was a car. The wife said that she wants to keep the car. The car was transferred to her name. There was some cash that was still going to come through later, and it was understood that the wife will pay the estate for the car from that cash. As such, no amount/value was attached for the car. The children kept insisting on selling the car because there was really no need for it at all. Eventually, the car was sold for R40000. This cash then belongs to the wife? And, how will the price be determined for the 1st sale ( when she purchased it from the estate,)?? Or is that sale even valid? The wife can say that she is paying R30 000 to the estate for the car. The other heirs can say that they want R40 000.
How do we solve this?
Answer
The transaction which took place between the wife and the other inheritors was an imperfect transaction since no price was stated for the car at the time of the transaction. The ruling would have been that the transaction be cancelled and reversed. However, since the car has now been sold on, the ruling will now be that the wife will pay the market value of the car. The market value which will be considered will be market value the day she took possession of the car.
The wife inherited a share from her husband’s assets, this included a share of the car. Therefore, after finding out the market value, the wife will have to pay the market value of the car minus her share.
Regarding the R40,000, it will belong to the wife. However, whatever profit was made above the full market value of the car, the wife will be advised to give it out in charity.
Checked and Approved By:
Mufti Muhammed Saeed Motara Saheb D.B.
References
(قوله وفسد إلخ) شروع في البيع الفاسد بعد الفراغ من الباطل وحكمه (قوله ما سكت فيه عن الثمن) ؛ لأن مطلق البيع يقتضي المعاوضة فإذا سكت كان غرضه القيمة فكأنه باع بقيمته فيفسد ولا يبطل درر: أي بخلاف ما إذا صرح بنفي الثمن كما قدمه قريبا. (رد المحتار ج٥ ص٦٠)
(وإذا قبض المشتري المبيع برضا) عبر ابن الكمال بإذن (بائعه صريحا أو دلالة) بأن قبضه في مجلس العقد بحضرته (في البيع الفاسد) وبه خرج الباطل وتقدم مع حكمه وحينئذ فلا حاجة لقول الهداية والعناية: وكل من عوضيه مال كما أفاده ابن الكمال، لكن أجاب سعدي بأنه لما كان الفاسد يعم الباطل مجازا كما مر حقق إخراجه بذلك فتنبه. (ولم ينهه) البائع عنه ولم يكن فيه خيار شرط (ملكه) إلا في ثلاث في بيع الهازل وفي شراء الأب من ماله لطفله أو بيعه له كذلك فاسدا لا يملكه حتى يستعمله. والمقبوض في يد المشتري أمانة لا يملكه به. وإذا ملكه تثبت كل أحكام الملك إلا خمسة: لا يحل له أكله، ولا لبسه، ولا وطؤها، ولا أن يتزوجها منه البائع، ولا شفعة لجاره لو عقارا أشباه. وفي الجوهرة وشرح المجمع: ولا شفعة بها فهي سادسة (بمثله إن مثليا وإلا فبقيمته) يعني إن بعد هلاكه أو تعذر رده (يوم قبضه) ؛ لأن به يدخل في ضمانه فلا تعتبر زيادة قيمته كالمغصوب. (رد المحتار ج٥ ص٨٨)
(لا) يطيب (للمشتري) ما ربح في بيع يتعين بالتعيين بأن باعه بأزيد لتعلق العقد بعينه فتمكن الخبث في الربح فيتصدق به. (رد المحتار ج٥ ص٩٧)