In the first case to reach the Court of Appeal involving a claim brought by a co-habitant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, the judges were asked to consider the novel point of whether an Order requiring the estate to transfer the property for full value was “financial provision”. Yes, was the answer.
The circumstances of the case were unusual and referred to as exceptional by the Court of Appeal. Mr Warner was 91 years old and had lived with Audrey Blackwell for nearly 20 years at the time of her death. She was his junior by 8½ years and they had always assumed that he would pass away first. As it was, she died before he did without leaving a will. Her estate would pass to her daughter Mrs Lewis under the intestacy rules, and for reasons better known to her, she did not want Mr Warner to remain at the property or to be allowed to buy it.
The 1975 Act
The 1975 Act allows co-habitants to bring a claim if immediately prior to the death of the deceased, the couple had been living together for 2 years in the same household as husband and wife. Assuming that the co-habitant meets those criteria, they can bring a claim if the deceased’s will or the intestacy rules do not make reasonable financial provision. Reasonable financial provision is defined as “such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance”. (Section (1)(2)(b)).
The trial judge held that Mr Warner had been maintained by the deceased, who had provided him with a roof over his head. The property had belonged to the deceased and Mr Warner could well afford to re-house himself, being the wealthier of the two. But he wanted to remain at the property where he had lived for the previous 20 years and which, according to him, were his happiest. In addition, it was in the village that he had lived all his life, was within walking distance of the local convenience store, and was next door to a doctor and his wife, who would look in on Mr Warner daily.
The Court of Appeal had to decide whether the Trial Judge was right in finding that Mr Warner had been maintained and whether a right to buy the property out of the estate amounted to financial provision. They agreed with the Trial Judge that he had been maintained, in the sense that he had had a roof provided for 20 years. And whilst there was no net loss to the estate or gain to Mr Warner if he was allowed to purchase the property, that did amount to “financial provision” and could be ordered by the court.
The decision shows that the maintenance an applicant might expect to receive is not necessarily purely financial, but, as in this case, can extend to broader practical needs of the applicant.
James Burrows is a partner in the dispute resolution team at Stephens Scown specialising in inheritance and trust disputes. If you have any queries about the 1975 Act or any other issue then please do contact James on 01872 265100, by email solicitors@stephens-scown.co.uk.