Adult Child Inheritance Claim: Isaacs v Green Case

This is an unusual adult child inheritance claim case in that the deceased’s 74-year old son was awarded 25% of his mother’s estate, largely due to one condition: his specific accommodation needs, as the Will had previously left him with nothing.

When looking into Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act), there is a limited class of people who can bring a claim. In order to qualify within this specific category of individuals, they must be a spouse, civil partner, ex-spouse/civil partner, a child of the deceased or a ‘dependent’. Adult children can apply, however historically, are less likely to be successful in a claim given the likelihood that they have been self-sufficient for years.

However, to be successful, it is important that the Claimant must prove that the deceased’s estate failed to provide them with ‘reasonable financial provisions’. It will then be down to the Court’s discretion, if the claim goes to trial, to determine whether, and to what extent to make a financial award. It should be noted that most inheritance claims are settled out of Court.

Background

Looking into Isaacs v Green, it is important to look at the background. The material facts show that Sybil Rachael Isaacs died in 2013, leaving behind three adult children, twins David and Susan, and Ruth (all in their 70’s). David was 74 years of age and suffered from major health issues that affected his mobility.

The deceased left behind a Will from 2006 that excluded her only son, David, while equally benefitting her other two daughters, Ruth and Susan. In or around 2011 after his divorce, David had moved back into the family property and lived rent-free with Ruth, providing care for the deceased in her later years. It was unclear as to why the deceased made the decision to exclude her son from the Will, but it was largely assumed that this was to prevent his ex-wife from having any claim on the estate. After the divorce, the deceased made no attempt to amend her will to include David and whilst it was reported David and deceased did not enjoy a close relationship, the judge concluded that it was at least ‘friendly’.

Sybil’s estate primarily consisted of the family property valued at approximately £600,000 and other assets totalling £27,000. Susan, the other daughter, resided in a publicly funded care facility in the United States and was severely incapacitated with complex health needs. She expressed dissatisfaction with her living conditions but provided no detailed alternative proposals or costed solutions.

Ruth and David whilst living at the deceased’s house pooled resources together to maintain household costs but were unable to support themselves financially without the support of the deceased.

The Administrator of the deceased’s estate, (a firm of solicitors) Mr Green, pursued possession proceedings against Ruth and David for continuing to occupy the deceased’s property rent-free, which led to disputes impacting the estate’s overall administration.

David had initially sought £265,000 as reasonable provision, however, later adjusted his claim to one-third of the estate. Ruth supported his claim, whilst Susan opposed it.

David argued that the 2006 Will failed to make reasonable financial provision for him, emphasising his lack of independent means, health conditions and long-term reliance on the family property. Susan on the other hand, argued that the Will reflected the deceased’s clear intention to exclude David. She argued that her inheritance must be protected to address her severe health challenges and expressed concern that reducing her share would not meaningfully benefit David.

Whilst Mr Green, who was acting as an independent administrator, had sought possession of the property to facilitate the estate administration, he remained neutral throughout the litigation.

The decision

Matters could not be settled through pre-action correspondence, so the case went to trial. The Court inevitably ordered that David should receive 25% of the estate’s value to facilitate his accommodation needs, where Ruth and Susan were each allocated the 37.5% remaining within the estate.

David and Ruth were permitted six months to either purchase the family property, or vacate it, after which, possession could be enforced against them. From the date of the judgment, both David and Ruth were ordered to pay Susan £1,125 calculated as 37.5% of the mesne profits claim (damages payable by a person in wrongful possession of property), for continued occupation of the property during the six-month transitional period. The Court declined to make David or Ruth account for the mesne profits for the period prior to the order, balancing their earlier contributions to maintaining the property with the deceased’s apparent approval of David’s occupation when he cared for the deceased.

With regard to costs, the Court awarded costs of the claim to David, with Susan ordered to pay three-quarters, subject to detailed assessment.

What was the Court’s rationale?

As a child of the deceased, any entitlement under the 1975 Act was limited to ‘maintenance’ (s.1(2)(b) of the 1975 Act). David therefore needed to demonstrate what reasonable financial provision he required for his maintenance. The Court found that David did in fact have a financial need for reasonable maintenance, particularly for secure accommodation, and concluded that the deceased’s decision to exclude him from the Will was likely motivated by concerns over his marital status, rather than estrangement.

Furthermore, Ruth’s support for David’s claim further underscored his reliance on estate assets, particularly the family property. The Court noted that, whilst David’s current shared arrangement with Ruth may address his immediate needs, he had no legal entitlement to long-term security without provision from the estate. In 2017, the Supreme Court considered Ilott v The Blue Cross, which highlighted important guidance the Court must consider. It acknowledged that maintenance is a broad concept and can include securing suitable accommodation. The Court therefore must consider several factors, including:

It was clear to the Court that David had limited financial means and was dependant on the estate (and Ruth) for his living arrangements; concluding that accommodation was his main financial need. The possession proceedings (which were currently adjourned at this point) complicated matters further, with the risk of being homeless, both David and Ruth needed their inheritance to rehouse themselves.

Susan was severely disabled and residing in the United States and required round-the-clock care. She received no financial support from her husband, but it was unclear why and therefore was needing to pay for her legal fees out of her inheritance. Although Susan’s health needs were significant, her medical and care costs were largely covered by public funds in the United States, and her suggested alternatives, such as private care or moving to a better facility, were deemed financially unfeasible given the estate’s limited resources.

The Court determined that a lump-sum should be awarded to David as opposed to a life interest or proportional share akin to Ruth and Susan’s was the most practical way to balance competing claims while recognising David’s dependence on the property since 2013.

Why is this case important?

This case, and subsequent ruling, clearly demonstrates the risks of excluding a child from your will, particularly without any accompanying documentation which may explain, or give justifications. It also demonstrates that the categories within the 1975 Act extend to those no matter of age and each is on a case by case basis.