fbpx

Reasonable Provision May Not Mean What You Think

12th March 2018 By Arman Khosravi

When a person is excluded from the will of someone on whom they were ‘dependent’, the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides that the dependent person can apply for ‘reasonable financial provision’ to be made for their maintenance out of the deceased’s estate.

It may be thought that this is purely about the money side of a will and the relationship that preceded it, but a decision of the Court of Appeal shows that the law is more subtly shaded than it may appear.

The case involved an elderly lady who had lived with her partner for more than 20 years. When she died, having left him nothing in her will, he made a claim under the Act…not for financial provision, which he did not need, but for the right to buy the property in which they both had lived for its current market value. He just did not want to move, which is unsurprising given that he is 93 years old.

Rather surprisingly, the woman’s daughter and her executor opposed his claim and also sought a court order to have him evicted. In 2015, the County Court concluded that having a roof over one’s head was ‘maintenance’ and ruled in favour of the man, which even more surprisingly led to an appearance in the Court of Appeal because the daughter and executor appealed against that decision. They argued that he could afford to buy another property and in any case his continued occupation was depriving them of the ability to obtain the ‘chattels’ (furniture etc.).

The Court of Appeal was clear that the decision in the County Court was made with proper consideration of the provisions of the Act. Section 2(1)(c) permits the provision of maintenance in the form of the transfer to the applicant of property from the estate, and it was common ground that this could be in return for some financial consideration. It had been established that maintenance in the form of accommodation had been provided and the man needed that maintenance to continue. Just because he could afford to make alternative arrangements did not mean that he was not entitled to have the status quo maintained.

The appeal was dismissed, leaving the daughter and executor to pick up a hefty bill for legal costs.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Retired Businessman's Final Will Ruled Invalid

2nd May, 2024 By

Having your will drawn up professionally by a qualified solicitor is always a sensible precaution, especially in later life. In a recent case, the High Court ruled that a retired businessman lacked testamentary capacity when he made a will less than three and a half years before he died at the age of 87. The man and his first wife were married for nearly 40 years and had four children. After her death he married again. In October 2015 he made a new will, revoking in most respects a will...

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...