This case considered a challenge of a will by an adult child under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 and gives useful guidance on how Courts deal with claims brought by adult children.
The Claim
Sybil Isaacs died in 2013 leaving her three children – Ruth Isaacs, Susan Ellis-Cohn and David Isaacs. The value of her estate at the time of her death was approximately £600,000.
In 2002 she signed a Will which left her residuary estate to her husband first and then her three children on second death.
However, in 2006, Mrs Isaacs amended her Will and left her residuary estate to her two daughters – Ruth Isaacs and Susan Ellis – Cohn. She left no provision for her son David Isaacs.
David brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. He was not in good health, had no savings and was retired. He was also on a low income which consisted of state pension and pension credit.
Her son David was at the time retired and living in Mrs Isaacs home along with his sister Susan, where he had cared for his mother in the years before her death. The deceased’s personal representatives were seeking possession of the property which, if successful, would have made him homeless.
David’s argument was that the reason for the exclusion was that at the time, he was going through a divorce and Mrs Isaacs did not want his ex-wife to be able to have a claim on the estate. His sister Susan instead stated that there was a poor relationship between David and Mrs Isaacs, which was the reason for the exclusion.
Susan was severely disabled and lived in publicly funded care accommodation.
What does the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 state?
Under section 1 of the 1975 Act any of the following persons may apply to the Court for an order under section 2 of the 1975 Act:
- A spouse or civil partner of the deceased
- A former spouse or civil partner
- A person living as the spouse or civil partner of the deceased
- A child of the deceased
- A child treated as a child of the family
- A person maintained by the deceased
Where claims are made by an adult child, reasonable financial provision according to the maintenance standard applied by the Court means ‘such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance’.
The 1975 Act does not define ‘maintenance’. While it does not mean only what the applicant needs to subsist, it also does not mean providing anything that a person may regard as desirable for their general welfare. It has been suggested that the standard of maintenance that is reasonable means payment enough to allow an applicant to maintain their standard of living.
Under S3(1) of the 1975 Act there are seven general guidelines that the courts must consider when deciding if reasonable financial provision has been made and, if necessary, whether to make an order and what provision should be made. These are:
- the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the financial resources and financial needs which any other applicant for an order under section 2 of the Act has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- the financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
- any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards any applicant or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
- the size and nature of the net estate of the deceased;
- any physical or mental disability of any applicant or any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
- any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.
The Verdict
The Court considered the argument put forward by David as to the reason for the exclusion from his mother’s Will. After further investigation of the evidence, it was found that the real reason for the exclusion was due to Mrs Isaacs concern over her son’s marriage and the effect the divorce would have on anything she left him in the Will.
Although the divorce had been finalised in 2008, it was noted Mrs Isaacs did not execute a further Will.
The judge accepted that David was in genuine financial need, required provision for his maintenance and was not capable of earning a living stating,
‘Having regard to [the claimant’s] financial needs and resources, his state of health and my findings as to the circumstances surrounding his exclusion from the 2006 will, I consider that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for him and that I should now make reasonable financial provision for him within this claim.’
The Court did acknowledge that housing was David’s main need and while it was noted that it could be provided by way of a life interest trust, it was not appropriate in this case as both David and his sister were elderly and the life interest would have tied up a large part of the estate for an unknown period which would also delay the inheritance of the sisters.
The Judge awarded David 25% of the residuary estate, and Ruth and Susan each received 37.5%.
David and Ruth were given six months to either purchase Mrs Isaacs’ property or vacate it. In the interim period, David and Ruth were ordered to pay Susan £1,125 per month in rent.
Points to Consider
This case demonstrates that whilst claims are rarely brought by children who are of a pension receiving age, it is not impossible and the courts will still look to consider whether reasonable financial provision should be made for them. Simple exclusion does not automatically entitle someone to claim from the deceased’s estate but rather the Courts will look at the fuller picture including the relationship between the parent and child.
Whilst the Court will still follow the established principles, other factors such as disability, income, ability to work, residence in the family home and care to the deceased is also taken into account.
