Daughter Beats Stepsister in £300k Inheritance Dispute | Curtis Parkinson

Daughter Beats Stepsister in £300k Inheritance Dispute

24 September, 2019 4 minutes reading time


John & Ann Scarle, who died at home from hypothermia in October 2016, have been at the centre of a bitter inheritance dispute which settled recently, in August 2019. The argument ended up in the High Court after their two step-daughters quibbled over which parent died first.

The case revolved around a little-used 100-year law, not used since the 1950s when it was more commonly applied to settle disputes in Blitz deaths.

The Dispute

Anna Winter (Mr Scarle’s daughter) and Deborah Cutler (Mrs Scarle’s daughter), who had a strained relationship, went to court over who was entitled to inherit their parent’s joint assets. Their main asset is their bungalow, valued at £280,000.

Mr & Mrs Scarle held the property as joint tenants. This means that one person’s share of the property passes to the survivor when they die. As the couple died without a will (intestate), their estate automatically passed to their children.

The key issue in this case is who died first. The forensic evidence was not clear. In turn, this made it very difficult to establish whose child should inherit the property.

Mediation Rejected

It seems Ms Cutler had offered to settle the case by dividing the assets, including the couple’s home, equally between herself and Mrs Winter. She had also suggested a 60/40 split in Mrs Winter’s favour, including an offer of mediation to resolve the matter.

However, Mrs Winter remained ‘intransigent’ and rejected these proposals, stating that she would only settle out of court if her stepsister agreed to her having all the assets. Litigation ensued.

The “Commorientes Rule”

Mrs Winter argued her father died later because his body was less decomposed. Ms Cutler relied on the “Commorientes Rule,” which presumes the older person died first when the joint owners’ death order is unclear. This rule (Section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925) would give the estate to the younger person.

Forensic evidence suggested Mrs Scarle died first, meaning her husband would have inherited everything before his death, which would then pass to Mrs Winter. However, Ms Cutler argued that the presumption of her father dying first should apply, meaning she would inherit from her mother.

The Judgment

The court ruled that Mrs Scarle, who had mobility issues from a brain haemorrhage, was more decomposed than her husband. Despite this, Judge Kramer questioned whether decomposition definitively proved the order of deaths.

He found the explanations of who died first unconvincing, So he applied Section 184 of the Law of Property Act 1925, meaning the younger person (Mrs Scarle) was presumed to have died last. As a result, Ms Cutler inherited the entire £300,000 estate. Mrs Winter was ordered to pay £150,000 in legal fees.

Our Advice

This is an unusual case. That said, it does cast light on why it’s important to understand the pros and cons of how you own a property. Moreover, making a Will – and keeping it up to date – can better determine how assets are distributed.

If the Scarles had owned the property as tenants in common (not joint tenants), the survivorship rule wouldn’t apply. Instead, their assets would go to their chosen beneficiaries. They could then distribute them as they wished.

If they’d owned the property differently, the order of their deaths wouldn’t have mattered. Consequently the “Commorientes Rule” wouldn’t have been used.

Whilst careful estate planning will always mitigate risk, on occasion, it is challenging to avoid family disputes. Inheritance disputes can be complex. And costly.

This case also emphasises that finding an alternative way to settle a dispute can often be of enormous emotional and financial benefit.

For more information or advice about estate planning, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Please note that all views, comments or opinions expressed are for information only and do not constitute and should not be interpreted as being comprehensive or as giving legal advice. No one should seek to rely or act upon, or refrain from acting upon, the views, comments or opinions expressed herein without first obtaining specialist, professional or independent advice. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, Curtis Parkinson cannot be held liable for any errors, omissions or inaccuracies.

Partnerships & Accreditations
Member of the World Association of Notaries Certified Cyber Essentials