Garland v Morris & Anor

Adult children have no special statutory hurdle under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Their claims are assessed by weighing all relevant circumstances under section 3. Financial need alone does not establish that a testamentary disposition failed to make reasonable financial provision for maintenance.

The court must balance the applicant’s resources and needs against those of beneficiaries, the deceased’s obligations, the estate’s size and nature, conduct and other relevant matters. A moral obligation may be a powerful factor, but it is not a prerequisite. Delay in bringing a claim does not alter the basic question whether the disposition was reasonable, but may justify a less generous order or no order after the estate has been distributed.

Yvette Hilary Garland claimed against her late father’s estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Her father had left the residue to her sister and nothing to her. She sought lump sums for repairs and an additional bedroom, relying principally on severe financial need and responsibility for two young children.

The claim was issued more than three years after probate and outside the statutory period, but time had been extended. The central issues were whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant’s maintenance and, if so, what order should be made having regard to the claimant’s needs, the sister’s circumstances, the prior inheritance received by the claimant, the estrangement between the claimant and her father, and the delayed claim.

1. Applicable approach. The claim was dismissed. An adult child is in no different position from any other applicant under section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. There is no requirement to establish a moral obligation or other special circumstance as a threshold condition. The court must assess the section 3 factors and decide whether, in all the circumstances, the disposition failed to make reasonable financial provision for maintenance.
2. Balancing exercise. The relevant factors included the claimant’s financial resources and needs, earning capacity and responsibilities for dependent children; the sister’s resources, needs and financial obligations; the deceased’s obligations to each daughter; the size and nature of the estate; disability; conduct; and any other relevant matter. Moral obligation may be a factor of substantial weight, but no factor has a predetermined position in the balancing exercise.
3. Assessment of the claimant’s needs. The claimant was living on a low income in seriously defective housing and had limited present earning capacity because she cared for a young child. Those matters weighed strongly in her favour. However, she had chosen to preserve the full value of her house rather than accept a renovation grant secured by a charge, and the need for an additional bedroom could be addressed by her adult son obtaining separate accommodation.
4. Countervailing factors. The sister had a close relationship with the deceased, had genuine financial needs and was supporting a child at university. The claimant had already inherited her mother’s estate and owned her home outright. Neither the claimant nor her father had met or spoken during the last fifteen years of his life, and the claimant had made little effort to restore contact. These factors were relevant regardless of blame for the estrangement.
5. Effect of delay. The claimant’s delay did not affect the basic question whether the will was reasonable under section 1. It did affect the discretionary relief available, because the sister had been entitled to treat the residue as hers and had spent most of it before receiving notice of the claim.
6. Conclusion. Weighing all the circumstances, the claimant failed to establish that it was unreasonable for the deceased to make no provision for her. The claim was dismissed.