Unlike some of our European neighbours, in England and Wales we are free to leave our estates to whoever we wish after our death, with no obligation to provide for our family and dependants. This can (and often does) lead to some interesting results, with families being surprised to discover that they have been cut out of a relative's will in favour of a charity, friends or even the owners of the local Chinese restaurant in one high profile case!
However, a case which has recently caught the interest of the national press serves as a reminder of a useful piece of inheritance law which can in certain circumstances help disappointed beneficiaries. Ron Lilleyman met his second wife Barbara in 2004, shortly after the death of his first wife and they married in 2007. Mr Lilleyman was a successful businessman whose pay as a company director largely funded their lifestyle. As well as the matrimonial home which was owned jointly, Mr Lilleyman also purchased a luxury seafront apartment in Bournemouth as a second home for the couple. Mrs Lilleyman gave up her part-time job at her husband's request and sold her own home, giving £175,000 to her husband.
In 2008, Mr Lilleyman changed his will and, unknown to his wife, left her only a right to live in the two properties for the rest of her life, his personal possessions and a small annuity. The remainder of his estate was left to his two adult sons from his first marriage. When Mr Lilleyman died in 2010 aged 64, his estate was valued at £6 million. His widow brought a claim against his estate on the basis that the will did not make "reasonable provision" for her. This was opposed by her step-sons. Mrs Lilleyman has now won her claim, with the judge ordering that the two properties should be transferred to her outright.
The claim was brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This enables certain categories of beneficiaries to challenge the provisions of a will or an intestacy if "reasonable provision" has not been made for them. Those entitled to bring a claim include a spouse or civil partner, a cohabitee, a child of the deceased or anyone else who was being maintained financially by the deceased when he was alive. The starting point for the court is whether the will or intestacy did make reasonable financial provision for the claimant in the circumstances. When considering whether or not to make an award, the court considers a number of factors, including the needs and resources of the claimant and any other beneficiaries, the length and nature of the claimant's relationship with the deceased and the size of the estate. Spouses and civil partners are entitled to more generous provision under the Act than other classes of beneficiaries, which will have helped Mrs Lilleyman in her claim.
There are two lessons which we can take from the Lilleyman case:
The first is that a disappointed beneficiary may be able to bring a claim if they can establish that reasonable financial provision has not been made for them under a will or intestacy. However, the beneficiary needs to move quickly and take legal advice as soon as possible. Any claim has to be brought within six months from grant of probate.
The second is that when making a will, an individual needs to be aware of the rights of beneficiaries to bring a claim in certain circumstances. Mr Lilleyman's estate will inevitably have been depleted through the costs of this case, leaving aside the emotional impact on his family. Had he been aware that his wife was entitled to enjoy a certain standard of financial provision after his death then he may well have adjusted his will to leave her a larger inheritance, avoiding the costs to his estate and distress to his family which the litigation will have caused.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
