If you are looking at making a claim against an estate it is essential for you to obtain specialist legal advice as soon as possible. The recent case of Wellesley v Wellesley (2019) is a reminder of just how important it is for you to instruct a specialist.
Recent Adult Child 1975 Act Case
In this case, Tara Wellesley brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependants) Act 1975 (“the 1975 Act”) against her late father’s estate. Her father was the 7th Earl of Cowley, and his estate was worth £1.3 million of which she had only been left £20,000 under the terms of his Will. The rest of the estate was left to his fourth wife (for her use during her lifetime) and then on her death to be divided between the Earl’s son (the 8th Earl of Cowley) and five step-children.
The reason for Tara receiving so much less than her brother and step-siblings is that at the time of her father’s death she had been estranged from him for some 35 years. Tara claimed under the 1975 Act that £20,000 was not reasonable financial provision and that she was in need of more provision from his estate for her maintenance.
In support of her claim, she relied on the fact that she was unemployed and reliant on state benefits, unable to work due to a mental disability (ADHD) and did not have secure accommodation for her and her son (who also had mental disabilities) but couldn’t afford to buy a home as her expenditure exceeded her income. She also argued that the estrangement with her father was due to the fact that she had been forced out of the home at a young age by her father’s second wife. In valuing her claim she sought 10 – 13% of the net estate in line with the award made in a previous case; this would have amounted to an award of £130,000 instead of the £20,000 she was already receiving.
The Defendants argued that £20,000 was reasonable financial provision and that Tara’s previous conduct had caused the estrangement and outweighed any financial need that she may be in. The estrangement was stated to have been caused by the Earl disapproving of Tara’s “chaotic” lifestyle which is understood to have included heavy drinking, use of drugs and inappropriate choice of company in her younger days. Despite attempts by the Earl to try to help her, these failed and the relationship broke down as a result.
The Judge’s Decision
At trial, the judge decided £20,000 was reasonable financial provision for Tara and that her claim for more therefore failed. He took the view that the estrangement was due to Tara (not the Earl) and that this outweighed other factors which might have gone in her favour under the 1975 Act. The judge found that Tara was capable of living within her means, there was no obligation upon the Earl to provide for her instead of her needing to rely upon state benefits and that her own son was in residential care, so she wasn’t in fact providing for him. The judge did not accept that Tara’s ADHD prevented her from working and given this, her ability to live within her means and having had no financial support from the Earl in her adult life he would have made the same decision even if they hadn’t been estranged for so many years.
In making his decision, the judge also made reference to the fact that the Earl had the right to leave his estate to whom he wanted and that this had been taken into account when reaching his decision. He also didn’t think the Earl had been unreasonable in leaving Tara only £20,000 in the circumstances. In valuing her claim at 10-13% of the estate, the judge did not accept that this was the way that cases by adult children under the 1975 Act should be valued just because it is the award that had been ordered in a previous case. The facts of each case were stated to be what matters and applying a percentage approach was not helpful to that.
Avoid Pitfalls in Your Case
This case shows that predicting the outcome of Adult Child 1975 Act claims is a tricky exercise. However, it reinforces the importance of clients instructing specialist inheritance dispute solicitors to navigate the pitfalls of such claims as those specialists will be adept at noting the nuances of the decided cases and adopting those which favour their clients whilst avoiding those which may otherwise scupper their claim.
We would therefore always encourage potential clients to call us to discuss whether they may bring a successful claim against their loved one’s estate and we will be happy to guide you through the process.