Estranged Child Inheritance Claim: McDaniel v Talbot Case

This claim looks into the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (Act) and the consequences of estranged family relationships. It looks specifically at the disposition of a deceased’s estate and whether or not it failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant’s maintenance.

Background

Emma McDaniel (Emma), the claimant, was the first child of Mark, the deceased. Emma and Mark were estranged from one another since Emma was about 8 months old following a breakdown of the relationship between Mark and Emma’s mother. Mark did pay child maintenance until Emma was 16, but he stopped thereafter, with no contact from about 2002.

In 2002, Emma aged 16 became pregnant and reached out to Mark for financial support. Convinced this was orchestrated by Emma and her mother, no financial support was provided by Mark.

Mark then married Rosemary on 24 May 2014 and had two children together, Scott and Amy. On 28 May 2014, 4 days after their marriage, Mark executed his Will leaving his entire estate to Rosemary, and specifically left a non-provision declaration regarding Emma and his other son, Rhys, citing their estrangement as his rationale.

In February 2019, Mark of his own volition, reached out to Emma and they began to rekindle a father-daughter relationship, with regular contact up until his death on 4 December 2022.

Finances

A key element of this claim is the parties’ financial circumstances. Emma is the mother of two boys, both of whom have severe learning difficulties and physical disabilities requiring full time care. Emma and her husband both have their own health challenges which means work opportunities are scarce.

Emma operates a special needs advocacy business which was incorporated in March 2022, earning approximately £7,200 annually. Her monthly household income is £4,791.33 with outgoings of £4,019.08.

Mark’s net estate was valued at £1,574,579.67. Rosemary also has substantial assets including properties worth over £3 million and an annual income of £142,229.

The claim and the law

Emma’s claim was brought as an adult child applicant under section 1(1)(c) of the Act, seeking provision limited to maintenance, alleging that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for her.

Emma submitted that the disposition of Mark’s estate failed to make reasonable financial provision for her given her responsibilities in respect of caring for her two disabled adult children and her grandmother. Due to her caring responsibilities, she argued that she had limited earning capacity and her and Mark had developed a close father-daughter relationship since 2019 until 2022 when Mark died.

Emma submitted that Mark had also assumed and expressed parental responsibility towards her, including discussions of financial support and accommodation which strengthened her moral claim under the Act and that the estrangement prior to 2019 should carry limited weight because it resulted in Mark’s unilateral decision to cease contact with her when she was an infant.

Emma’s primary preference was for a sum sufficient to purchase an alternative property, whilst acknowledging such orders are rare, or alternatively capitalisation of a sum accounting for current debts and recurring expenses.

Rosemary on the other hand submitted that her defence was not needs-based and she had access to relative wealth, however challenged Emma’s evidence regarding her business income as incomplete and unsubstantiated, suggesting Emma’s annual salary of £7,200 was artificially low.

Rosemary also characterised the relationship more of a friendship, rather than a close father-daughter relationship, and submitted that the monthly contributions of £245 from one of Emma’s son’s income was arbitrary and artificial, with his entire income properly regarded as available to the household. Rosemary also submitted that Emma could dramatically increase her work levels and income, potentially earning £40,000 – £50,000 annually as a special advocate.

Rosemary submitted that Mark’s will reflected his settled testamentary intentions over many years and that testamentary freedom should be given significant weight in the balancing exercise. Additionally, she stated Emma’s financial needs were overstated because her partner also contributed to household support and care responsibilities. Further, she claimed there was no binding commitment by Mark to provide financial assistance or property to Emma and that discussions during his lifetime were informal and non-binding.

The ruling

The court allowed Emma’s claim and ordered that she receive a lump sum of £123,418.47 which represented approximately 8.2% of the net estate. This comprised £103,155 to be held in a discretionary trust allowing Emma to draw down sums without adversely affecting her state benefit entitlement, and £20,263.47 to pay off her debts excluding her student loan. The court was satisfied that this amount would provide Emma with a cushion amounting to 10% of her annual income for unforeseen expenditure and occasional modest luxuries, taking her out of a substandard-level existence, whilst also making reasonable provision for her maintenance.

When reaching this decision, the Court applied the two-stage test under the Act, namely whether there has been a failure to make reasonable financial provision, and if so, what order should be made, considering the seven factors set out in section 3 of the Act.

The Court also looked at Emma’s finances, as stated above, and found that her monthly income almost precisely matched her outgoings, meaning she had no leeway for unexpected expenditure.

The Court also rejected Rosemary’s submission that she could increase her salary, given her caring responsibilities, the structure of state benefits and her own health issues. The Court also rejected her characterisation of the relationship, evidenced by Mark’s offers of financial support, the wedding gift given as a family present and Emma’s acceptance into Mark’s family, which Rosemary was part of.

The Court noted that the special circumstances required for a successful claim lay in Emma’s caring contributions extending to her children, Mark and her grandmother which strengthened the bond between Emma and Mark which had been rekindled in the latter stages of Mark’s life. This differentiated this case from other typical estrangement cases. The Court held that Emma’s generosity and care towards Mark and their close relationship elevated this situation to the moral dimension where matters of love, duty, affection, care and respect operate, qualifying as the additional factor needed for a claim by a child with earning capacity to succeed.

Finally, looking at the will, the Court noted Mark’s specific non-provision clause had been entirely reversed by the time of his death, though there was no evidence he had changed his testamentary intentions. Therefore, the court found that it would be possible to make an order favouring Emma without compromising Rosemary’s standard of living or depriving her of the bulk of her inheritance.