Inheritance Act Nightmare

Urban_Tangleweed

My father passed away late last year and left his estate to me with his widow (my step-mother) given the right to live in the property and it be maintained and insured from the residuary funds from the estate.

His Will is watertight but she is threatening a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 which is causing me considerable distress as it is not what he wanted and I care greatly that his last wishes be fully respected. However, my solicitor tells me she has a strong case.

They were married for over 30 years, he paid all the expenses concerned with his house (which was always in his sole name) and she bought the weekly food shopping.

She has a considerable annual pension income (well above the average UK salary) and decent savings in the bank.

She wants the house and other assets of the estate which equate to about  60% of the estate.

I have a great problem with varying his wishes and find the whole thing disrespectful and distasteful, but am wondering if it's worth all the stress and maybe I should give her what she wants to avoid a potentially costly and lengthy court process that might also end up going against what he wanted.

My fathers main reason for making the Will as he did, was to avoid his assets being diverted to her son who, although now well past middle age, has always been a financial burden to his mother.

This has been going on between our respective solicitors for a few months and I'm growing weary of it and wondering if it's best just to give in so I can get my life back.

Trouble is, I have great problems morally with disrespecting what is clear and concise in his Will and of which his widow was fully aware, although she is now claiming she wasn't.

I have worked hard all my life and provided for myself quite well, it seems this also goes against me in this situation as I am financially secure......

Flugelhorn

very distressing to have all this going on. sounds like she has been provided for in the manner to which she is accustomed - has she really got an argument saying she should own the place and not just live in it at her late husband's expense?

presumed inheritance act would have been relevant if he had left her nothing or the house was not being maintained from the estate ?

definitely one for the lawyers and they can take their time

Keep_pedalling

I would not throw in the towel especially over the house, where her claim will certainly fail as she already has a beneficial interest. You could make an offer on the other assets (say 50%) and if she refuses them withdraw the offer and let the courts decide.

You say you are financially secure so just leave it to your solicitor to deal with it 

mattojgb

I would tend to agree with keep pedalling. On the face of it your father made no financial provision for his wife. She would therefore seem to have a strong case. Hard to know what reasonable provision for her would be without actual figures - but I don't think she would have any entitlement to the house.

bobster2

mattojgb said:

I would tend to agree with keep pedalling. On the face of it your father made no financial provision for his wife. She would therefore seem to have a strong case. Hard to know what reasonable provision for her would be without actual figures - but I don't think she would have any entitlement to the house.

Does giving her the right to live in the property for life, without paying rent, maintenance or insurance, not constitute finanical provision?

To the extend that she was financially dependent on him when he was alive - this provision would seem to continue most of that support.

Keep_pedalling

mattojgb said:

I would tend to agree with keep pedalling. On the face of it your father made no financial provision for his wife. She would therefore seem to have a strong case. Hard to know what reasonable provision for her would be without actual figures - but I don't think she would have any entitlement to the house.

I don’t agree that he made no financial provision, she has the right to live in the house for life which is a pretty big provision. If she had her own income that meets her needs then there would not need for anything further. Having said that an offer for her to receive part of the liquid assets may make this go away without the for this to go all the way to court, it will also help the OP if it is reheated and does go all the way to court.

Urban_Tangleweed

Keep_pedalling said:

mattojgb said:

I would tend to agree with keep pedalling. On the face of it your father made no financial provision for his wife. She would therefore seem to have a strong case. Hard to know what reasonable provision for her would be without actual figures - but I don't think she would have any entitlement to the house.

I don’t agree that he made no financial provision, she has the right to live in the house for life which is a pretty big provision. If she had her own income that meets her needs then there would not need for anything further. Having said that an offer for her to receive part of the liquid assets may make this go away without the for this to go all the way to court, it will also help the OP if it is reheated and does go all the way to court.

It may help to say she receives a widows benefit from his occupational pension scheme which is around £10K p.a. She also receives around a further £25K p.a. from her own previous occupational pension scheme and the state pension combined.

sammyjammy

Saying you will contest a will and actually doing so are very different things, I would call her bluff and let her start proceedings, its a very expensive move to make!

mattojgb

Have a look at the judgement in Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh 2023.

Note the divorce "cross check" referred to. I.e. the spouse should not be any worse off than if the marriage had ended by divorce rather than death.

mattojgb

bobster2 said:

mattojgb said:

I would tend to agree with keep pedalling. On the face of it your father made no financial provision for his wife. She would therefore seem to have a strong case. Hard to know what reasonable provision for her would be without actual figures - but I don't think she would have any entitlement to the house.

Does giving her the right to live in the property for life, without paying rent, maintenance or insurance, not constitute finanical provision?

To the extend that she was financially dependent on him when he was alive - this provision would seem to continue most of that support.

Most of this is ultimately for the benefit of the children. What if she cannot afford to pay bills? She is not in a position to downsize. As a minimum I would expect provision to be made for bills to be paid as that was what the husband did previously.

Urban_Tangleweed

mattojgb said:

Have a look at the judgement in Kaur v Estate of Karnail Singh 2023.

Note the divorce "cross check" referred to. I.e. the spouse should not be any worse off than if the marriage had ended by divorce rather than death.

Thank you, that makes for interesting reading.