### Ames v Jones & Ors [2016]: A Reflection on Inheritance Claims by Adult Children

In the case of Ames v Jones & Ors [2016], Danielle Ames’s claim for provision from her late father’s estate highlights the complexities and tensions that can arise in inheritance disputes, especially between adult children and surviving spouses. This case serves as a critical examination of the criteria under the Inheritance Act 1975 for adult children to claim reasonable provision from an estate and underscores the importance of clear wills and the potential risks of family litigation.

Unsuccessful Inheritance Claim Highlights Tensions Between Family Members

In a recent ruling that has caught the attention of legal practitioners and the public alike, Danielle Ames has been unsuccessful in her claim for provision from the estate of her late father, Michael, in the case of Ames v Jones & Ors [2016] EW Misc B67 (CC) decided on 19 August 2016. Michael, who left behind an estate valued at £1.09 million, bequeathed his entire fortune to Danielle’s stepmother, Elaine, leaving Danielle without any inheritance.

Danielle contended that her father’s failure to provide for her in his will was unreasonable, especially given his previous assurance that the estate ‘…will all be yours one day’. She sought £300,000 from the estate, arguing that the Inheritance Act 1975 entitled her to reasonable provision as an adult child of the deceased.

The case underscores the often complex and fraught dynamics between adult children from a first relationship and the surviving spouse or partner. Under the Inheritance Act 1975, adult children can claim that reasonable provision has not been made for them. However, they must demonstrate that the lack of provision was unreasonable, with their claim assessed on the basis of what is reasonable for their maintenance.

The court’s assessment considers various criteria, including the financial needs of the claimant and beneficiaries, the deceased’s obligations, the estate’s size and nature, any disabilities affecting parties, and any other relevant conduct.

This ruling comes in the wake of the landmark case of Ilott v. Mitson [2015], where the Court of Appeal found that reasonable provision had not been made for an adult child who had been estranged from her mother for over two decades. That case set a precedent by awarding the claimant a significant portion of the estate, which was initially left to several animal charities.

However, the facts in Ames led to a different outcome. Judge Halpern highlighted key factors in his judgment, including Danielle’s choice to be unemployed, her lack of disability, and the necessity of the estate to support Elaine, who is past working age and unwell. The judge noted that Michael had fulfilled his obligations to Danielle during his lifetime, notably setting her up in a picture framing business.

The decision in Ames reflects a stricter stance towards claims by adult children who are capable of work, with Judge Halpern echoing sentiments from previous cases questioning why provision should be made for those who can maintain themselves.

Interestingly, the case also brings to light the potential financial risks involved in litigation, as Danielle has been ordered to pay Elaine’s legal costs amounting to £85,000. This serves as a cautionary tale for those considering challenging wills, emphasizing the importance of clear will drafting and the consideration of potential claims.

Legal experts are now keenly awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in the appeal of Ilott, set for 12 December 2016, which may further clarify the law regarding adult children’s claims on estates.

This case not only highlights the complexities inherent in family and inheritance law but also serves as a reminder of the unpredictable nature of litigation and the need for careful estate planning.