Successful Claim Under The Inheritance Act Of An Adult Child

Fennessy v Turner

Facts of the case

Hazel Fennessy died on 2 February 2020, aged 78. She had two children, Patrick, who was the Claimant, in this case, and Heidi, who predeceased Hazel by approximately six weeks,

Patrick was entitled to bring a claim, as a child of the deceased, under Section 1(1)(c) of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.  Patrick was aged 60 and had seven children.

Hazel left a Will, dated 24 January 2012. Under the terms of the Will, she left her whole estate to Heidi, and appointed Heidi as sole executrix, if Heidi predeceased her the whole of the estate was left to Mrs Turner, the Defendant, who was also appointed sole executrix. The value of the estate was £360,371.63.

The law requires that it is determined whether Hazel’s Will made reasonable financial provision in all the circumstances for Patrick to receive for his maintenance. And, if not, what would amount to such reasonable financial provision.

Patrick worked as a coalman and an HGV driver and, after a short period of unemployment, worked part-time in a public house. It was thought that for some considerable time he ran the family coal-merchant business.

Mrs Turner practiced as a vet, was of adequate means, and did not have a need for the money.

Hazel and Heidi were extremely close throughout their lives and lived together. It was considered that Heidi could be difficult with family members for no obvious reason.

There was no evidence of any serious dissension within the family until 2011.

Patrick was granted a 25-year lease, at a peppercorn rent of the coal yard, and the freehold was transferred to Heidi. At some point, Patrick was assured by Hazel and Heidi that he would inherit ‘everything’ once they died. It was accepted that this created some expectations in Patrick’s mind.

Around 2011, a discussion ensued where it was proposed that Patrick move in with Hazel and Heidi, or that he move in with Hazel if Heidi was to die. Patrick rejected the idea and made some unwise remarks about boarding the property up. It was clear that Patrick’s refusal to co-operate with what was being proposed led directly to the terms of Hazel’s and Heidi’s Wills, which were then drawn up and signed on 24 January 2012. Patrick was not told about the terms of these Wills.

Patrick’s relationship with Hazel was described as dutiful, he would visit, speak on the telephone, and remember to send cards, and presents on birthdays and at Christmas.

At some point in 2019, due to Patrick declaring that he was the freeholder of the coal yard, Heidi wanted to cut off Patrick and influenced Hazel to cut off contact with Patrick.

Heidi died in December 2019. Hazel gave Mrs Turner a letter written and signed by Heidi but not signed by Hazel, which stated in general terms they did not want Patrick or his family to inherit anything. This was disregarded as a statement of Hazel’s wishes.

Judgment

Even though Hazel declined to consider changing her Will after Heidi’s death, this was not considered evidence of an irrevocable intention never to change the Will. As it was possible that if Hazel had lived longer and had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Patrick independently of Heidi’s views and influence, she may have changed her mind.

Patrick was in need of financial assistance, he lived in a motorhome and had a small amount of savings. He worked part-time and was unable to work longer as he was considered disabled. He was dependent on the goodwill of the landowner on which his motorhome was parked. It was considered he was in need of proper accommodation

The Judge considered that the indications to Patrick that he would inherit were never explicitly withdrawn, giving rise to a moral obligation that was a material factor in this claim.

The Judge did not consider, in the light of his current resources and limited earning capacity, that he was capable of living independently; and was not capable of being able to discharge his present or potential costs of daily living at an appropriate standard.

There was no suggestion that Hazel had any obligations towards Mrs Turner.

The Judge considered that the fact that Patrick wanted to continue to have a normal relationship with Hazel, and that Hazel’s and Heidi’s attempt to cut themselves off from him in 2019 probably much more reflected Heidi’s wishes than Hazel’s wishes, were very significant matters in this case.

The Judge awarded Patrick £177,500.00

Summary

The Judge, in Fennessy v Turner, referred to three points in the decision of Ilott v Mitson, which are useful points to bear in mind when considering the merits of a claim by an adult child: