Hulya Kars v Lewis John Brown & Ors [2026] EWCG 31 (fam)
This claim is for reasonable financial provisions under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (1975 Act) in respect of the estate of Jon Lamb (Deceased) who died intestate on 30 December 2021.
Parties:
- Claimant – former spouse of the Deceased;
- 1st Defendant – Deceased’s son – Administrator of the Estate and Beneficiary;
- 2nd Defendant – Deceased’s son and beneficiary of the Estate;
- 3rd Defendant – son of the Claimant and Deceased and beneficiary of the Estate (did not play an active part in the proceedings); and
- 4th Defendant – Estate of the Deceased’s adoptive daughter and a beneficiary of the Estate (did not play an active part in the proceedings).
The 1st Defendant obtained Letters of Administration on 17 August 2023, with the net value of the estate being recorded as £331,122 which included a property 47 Princes Street, Southend-on-Sea, SS1 1QA (Property).
The Claimant brought possession proceedings on 23 August 2023 in relation to the Property as she was sole registered proprietor, however the 1st Defendant lived there. There was a dispute as to the beneficial ownership, however matters were stayed pending the outcome of the proceedings under the 1975 Act.
Property proceedings:
With regards to the funding of the Property, the evidence showed that the Deceased directly contributed towards over 85% of the purchase price. The conduct of the parties with regard to the Property was as follows:
- The Deceased renovated the Property;
- The Deceased moved into the Property around 2010, although there is no evidence as to the exact date, however he was joined by several friends at various stages. There is no evidence that the claimant objected to this or sought any rent;
- The Deceased sold the family home in or around 2014/2015 which was in his name, and where the claimant and their son lived until around 2008; and
- The claimant at no stage lived in the Property, nor did she class this as her primary residence. She rented accommodation in Manchester where she was the sole carer of their son.
It was found, by taking a holistic approach as to the property, that the shared intention of the Deceased, who provided over 85% of the purchase money for the Property, and the claimant, who is the sole legal owner of the Property, was for the beneficial ownership to be shared between them. Fundamentally, it was concluded that the Property shall be split 50/50 between them, with the Deceased’s 50% falling into his estate.
The 1975 Act Claim:
The claimant was the former spouse of the Deceased and she was given permission to bring a claim out of time. The claimant and the Deceased married in June 2000, the claimant petitioned for divorce in January 2019 and the decree absolute was pronounced on 13 May 2019. Matrimonial finance proceedings were ongoing as at the time the deceased died. Section 2 of the 1975 Act provides for the court to make one or more of the orders specified therein if it is satisfied that the disposition of a deceased’s estate is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for an applicant.
Essentially, it was the claimant’s case that she is former spouse, with no final order or settlement in the matrimonial proceedings, and an outcome of no award would be unjust and would not amount to reasonable financial provisions. She claimed that even if the court were to award her beneficial interest in the Property, that it remains the case that the Deceased failed to make reasonable financial provisions for her, and she would be seeking a lump sum of £50,000 from the estate. Alternatively, if the Property were to fall within the estate, she would seek its transfer to her.
The judge decided in this case that the estate’s share of the Property should be transferred to the claimant, leaving her the sole owner of the Property.
Key practical takeaways
- Where matrimonial finances abate on death without a final order or settlement, a claim brought under the 1975 Act may still succeed on maintenance, as receiving little to nothing on intestacy may be unreasonable in the circumstances.
- In a long marriage, it was determined that a substantial period of time where the Deceased and the claimant lived apart did not preclude a successful former spouse claim. It was determined that analysis of the section 3 criteria in the 1975 Act remained fact-sensitive, rather than formulaic.
- Any failings with regard to disclosure in the matrimonial finance proceedings can be relevant under s3(1)(d) as part of the deceased’s obligations and responsibilities.
- The High Court (family division) is in fact able to determine disputes regarding the beneficial interest of the Property to identify the net estate for the purposes of the claim brought under the 1975 Act.
- It is not an abuse of process to bring a 1975 Act claim where the net estate may include property who is also the subject of separate possession proceedings and a counterclaim for a declaration of beneficial ownership.
How can we help?
Sophie Wilson is an Associate in our Dispute Resolution team.
If you have any queries relating to the above subject, please contact Sophie or another member of our team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.