0115 964 7740 - law@curtisparkinson.com


Adult Child Loses Inheritance Act Claim
25 June, 2020 4 minutes reading time
In recent years, Inheritance Act claims by those who feel they have been unfairly cut out of a Will have escalated. However, a recent “absolutely hopeless” case brought by an adult child, under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, highlights how such litigation is uncertain, stressful and often costly.
The Case – Shapton -vs- Seviour – Background
The case Shapton v Seviour concerned Colin Seviour’s £260,000 estate, which he left entirely to his terminally ill widow, Maria. He made no provision for his daughter, Carly Shapton (the claimant), or his son, Chris. Colin and Maria had planned for the survivor to eventually divide their combined estate equally among their four children from previous marriages.
Colin had been advised to use a trust for his children’s inheritance but declined. After Colin’s death, Carly’s relationship with Maria deteriorated. Maria then made a new Will, disinheriting Carly and Chris. Given these circumstances, why did the judge consider Carly’s “absolutely hopeless” claim?
The Claim
Carly decided to bring a claim against the estate left to Maria, alleging that it was unreasonable that she was left nothing after her father died, given their ‘incredibly close relationship’.
In setting out her application for ‘reasonable financial provision’ under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“Inheritance Act 1975”), Carly claimed that she needed £75,000 from her father’s estate to buy a larger home so she could provide a bedroom each for her children and an office space for her partner.
The Inheritance Act 1975
At this point, it’s important to understand the guiding principles of the Inheritance Act 1975. There are two categories of applicant that can make a claim:
- Spouses, ex-spouses (who have not remarried) and long-term partners. If their application is successful, they are entitled to a share of the deceased’ estate;
- Children and dependents. By contrast, successful applicants here are only entitled to ‘reasonable financial provision’. In practice, the Court will look at each case individually and assess the financial positions each party involved.
Adult children have struggled to bring a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975. In the UK, parents are not legally obliged to provide for their children, unlike in other countries. Assuming adult children are healthy and financially independent, an individual may leave their estate to whomever they choose.
That said, the Inheritance Act 1975 is designed to allow the Court to make provision for eligible claimants who are in financial need or where there is a legitimate reason for the provision to be made.
The Outcome
Judge Lloyd dismissed Carly’s application. He stated that she was motivated by a belief she was automatically entitled to a quarter of her father’s estate. He emphasised that the Will clearly gave the estate outright to Maria, the surviving spouse and that Maria had the right to change her will.
Financially, Judge Lloyd noted Carly’s “comfortable” lifestyle and self-inflicted credit card debt. Conversely, Maria, suffering from motor neurone disease and wheelchair-bound, needed the estate (over 80% of which was in the marital home) to live her remaining years with dignity and comfort. Carly was ordered to pay £12,500 in legal costs—a relatively low amount for this type of case (costs often exceed £100,000). Maria’s lawyer worked pro bono due to her declining funds.
The Impact
Successful inheritance claim cases often inspire similar lawsuits. The surge after Illot v Mitson showed that a disinherited, estranged adult child received 10% of the estate. However, this recent trial suggests Illot is unusual. Litigation outcomes are uncertain, especially with weak cases. We wait to see if the result of this case will reduce the number of adult inheritance claims settled out of court.
Our Advice
We have a wealth of experience advising clients on both sides of contesting a Will. If you would like further information or advice, 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.