Widow Pays for Delay in Seeking Provision From Her Husband's Estate

18th September 2019 By Arman Khosravi

If you feel that you have suffered a wrong of any kind, a delay in taking legal action can put paid to your chances of obtaining justice. A widow who was left nothing in her deceased husband’s will found that out to her cost when her hopes of obtaining reasonable financial provision from his estate were dashed.

The couple had been married for 13 years but had separated about a year before the husband died. The wife had lodged a divorce petition, but those proceedings were interrupted by her husband’s death. About a year previously, he had made a new will leaving his entire estate to two of his three children.

The widow eventually launched proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, seeking reasonable financial provision from his estate. However, a six-month time limit applies to such claims and, that deadline having been missed by about two months, she sought judicial permission to proceed with her case.

She argued that the delay was comparatively trivial and that, being impecunious, she had been reluctant to engage in litigation. It was also submitted that, had she succeeded in divorcing her husband prior to his death, she would probably have been awarded half of his property and assets.

However, in refusing to waive the deadline and dismissing the widow’s claim, the High Court found that she had failed to give an adequate explanation for the delay. She was aware of the time limit even before her husband’s death and knew that time would begin to run when his will was admitted to probate. His beneficiaries were in a precarious financial position and any delay in the administration of their father’s estate would cause them prejudice.

The Court noted that the widow’s claim, although arguable, was not unanswerable. She and her husband had signed a pre-nuptial agreement, by which they agreed that there would be no sharing of any property either of them had acquired before the marriage. The husband’s principal asset, his home, fell into that category.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...