The courts are increasingly willing to allow financial claims by adult children against a parent’s estate. However, this trend undermines the long-standing principle that a testator is free to leave their estate to whoever they choose.
In this particularly unusual case, the deceased’s 74-year-old son was awarded 25% of his mother’s estate, largely because of his specific accommodation needs. The will had left him with nothing.
Inheritance claims
When someone dies, a limited class of individuals can bring an inheritance claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. To qualify, they must be a ‘dependent’, such as a spouse, civil partner or a child of the deceased. Adult children can apply, but are less likely to succeed in a claim given the likelihood they have been self-sufficient for years.
A claimant must prove on balance that the deceased’s estate failed to provide them with reasonable financial provision. Most inheritance claims can be settled out of court, but if the claim does go to trial, the court will consider all the circumstances when deciding whether, and to what extent, to make a financial award.
Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951
Sybil Isaacs died in April 2013 leaving three adult children, twins David and Susan, and Ruth (all in their 70s). Susan lived in the US, while Ruth remained in the family home.
David was 74 and suffered major health issues that affected his mobility. Following his divorce and then the death of his father, David moved back to the family home in 2011 (by which time his mother lacked capacity). He has lived there ever since, along with his sister Ruth.
Under her November 2006 will, Sybil left her residuary estate to Susan and Ruth in equal shares. David was excluded from the will and he brought a claim for reasonable financial provision.
It was unclear why Sybil had excluded David, but it could have been to prevent his then wife from having any claim on his inheritance. Following his divorce, Sybil made no move to include him as a beneficiary. While David and his mother did not enjoy a close relationship, the judge concluded that it was least “friendly”.
As a child of the deceased, any entitlement under the 1975 Act was limited to ‘maintenance’ (s1(2)(b). David needed to demonstrate what reasonable provision he required for his maintenance.
The meaning and extent of ‘maintenance’ was considered in depth by the Supreme Court in 2017 (Ilott v The Blue Cross), which laid down important guidance, clarifying that maintenance is a broad concept and can include securing suitable accommodation.
The court will take into consideration several factors including:
- the parties’ needs and resources
- any physical or mental disability of the claimant
- the value of the estate (around £600,000 in this case) and
- the deceased’s obligations towards the claimant prior to death
It was clear David had limited financial means and was dependant on the estate (and on Ruth) for his living arrangements. Indeed, accommodation was his main financial need.
However, the executor (a firm of solicitors) had started possession proceedings in respect of the property (the proceedings were currently adjourned) which complicated matters. Both David and Ruth were defendants to the possession claim and at risk of being made homeless; and Ruth would then need her inheritance to rehouse herself.
Susan was severely disabled in the US and having to fund round-the-clock care. She was in a precarious position and receiving no financial support from her husband, but it was unclear why. She was also going to have to pay her legal costs out of her inheritance.
It was clear the estate could not meet the full needs of all three parties’ so a reasonable division had to be made.
Reasonable provision
David was awarded £150,000 (25%) of the net estate with the balancing going equally to Ruth and Susan. The judge gave David and Ruth 6 months to purchase the property or find an alternative place to live.
What does this mean?
This ruling demonstrates the risks of excluding a child out of your will, particularly if no explanation or justification is given. It’s also an important reminder to keep your will under review to avoid disputes in future. Expensive and distressing litigation could have been avoided in this case.
Our contentious probate solicitors provide prompt, sensitive advice to individuals and executors involved in inheritance claims and other estate disputes. Please contact Sophie Inchley at sophie.inchley@mfgsolicitors.com or call 01562 820181.
Sign up to receive legal insights & commentary, event updates, and the latest from mfg.