The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is a statute that allows certain classes of people to recover money from the estate of a deceased person if they have been unfairly excluded from a Will.
One of the factors the Court is obliged to consider in any claim under the 1975 Act is the:
“conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant”.
Conduct in an inheritance dispute claim
Conduct is one of the Section 3 factors, a central part of the 1975 Act which acts as the framework for the Court to consider when deciding whether or not the applicant has received reasonable financial provision from the estate.
By the time a 1975 Act claim arrives at Court it is quite possible that issues of past conduct have been raised by one if not all of the parties. ‘Conduct’ is simply anything said or done by anyone (including the deceased) which is specifically relevant to the claim. It is here that many tales of woe can be found.
Looking at the past
All 1975 Act claims require a substantial degree of gazing into the past, as well as looking forward at the future financial needs of the claimant and the beneficiaries.
Looking back at the deceased’s life will help understand how and why they made their testamentary wishes and sometimes this will mean a certain degree of dredging up the past.
This can be a difficult and painful exercise. Parties to a claim (or even witnesses with no interest in the estate) often recall events that might have had a considerable bearing on how and why the deceased came to draw up their Will.
It may be a particular event, a long running feud or disapproval of an individual’s life choices. There is endless scope for those matters which can be raised under the heading of ‘conduct’. But reported cases where conduct appeared to have a significant impact on the outcome of a 1975 Act claim are few and far between.
The effect of conduct on an inheritance dispute claim
One such case was Wright v Wright [2014]. An understanding of what had long past was fundamental to the outcome of this claim where the deceased’s mother was estranged from the claimant daughter, with whom she had not spoken for some nine years before her death.
The bulk of the mother’s estate was eventually left to her son and nothing to the daughter. The claimant launched a 1975 Act claim on the basis of her poor financial position and health.
However, some years before her death, the mother received a letter written in anger in 2001 by the claimant which wished her dead, such was the level of animosity. There were other incidents such as whether a sum of £10,000 was owed by the daughter to the mother.
Although the Judge accepted that the claimant had helped her mother run a shop when she was younger for little or no pay, and took note of her poor financial position and health, he still found her conduct by writing the letter was so bad that it outweighed the other Section 3 factors in her favour. The inheritance dispute claim failed on the basis that any obligation owed by the mother was discharged by the daughter’s later conduct.
Comment
It would be wrong to assume that conduct will be closely examined in every 1975 Act claim. That is not the case and the Court will not usually wish to be embroiled in a forensic analysis of every criticism, row and fallout that may have had a bearing on the deceased’s testamentary decisions.
There is a danger of descending into accusation and counter accusation which may not only be mostly irrelevant but also substantially increases the chances of the each party becoming further entrenched. This in turn lessens the chances of reaching a compromise to prevent an expensive trip to Court.
It can be very difficult for the parties involved to overlook conduct, as we all have memories and perspectives that closely shape our understanding of the people around us. However, it is important to concentrate on all the Section 3 factors, not just those buried deep in the past which at first glance appear in any party’s favour.
All 1975 Act claims are concerned with financial matters for the future and are not a stage for passing comment on the past action or inaction of the deceased or the other parties.
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team, specialising in inheritance dispute claims.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kevin or another member of our expert team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.