… Custom would be default here. Most likely the first born, or shared amongst the kids, whatever applies. Anyway there is a question on ownership given that i.e. has been homesteaded by the family.
Not true. You know that if you don’t write a will then your children will be your heirs.
That’s exactly where the “reasonable assumption” part kicks in. Most people expect people to leave their wealth to their relatives, and often they do. Thus, where no provision has been made, courts usually give it to their relatives (after the government gets its inheritance tax, that is). If fewer people expected it, there would be less reason for a fair court to leave it to the relatives, because the reasonable assumption would be different.
Even if this did make sense, the children would have to be the homesteaders, since they had been in contact with the property from their birth.
Exactly.
But I do not see how it could possibly be said that a more distant relative (who was the closest living relation to the deceased) would have right to the property if they never took part in homesteading it or were given it in a will.
Me neither.
Another thing worth noting is that people are not likely to include in their wills property that they don’t actually control, property that was stolen from their father, for example. So even if a will was found it might not include the propert in dispute. Property alienated from the rightful owner can not be treated like any other property.