Heading: Court Rules Deceased Father Must Provide for Children Despite Will’s Exclusion

Landmark Case Challenges the Bounds of Disinheritance in England and Wales

In a groundbreaking legal decision, the case of Re R (Deceased), J & another -v- S has set a precedent that may cause many to rethink their estate planning strategies. Despite a father’s explicit wishes to disinherit his two sons, as stated in his will, the court has ruled that he could not entirely exclude them from his estate.

Following the divorce of their parents, the two sons moved with their mother and her new partner from Norfolk to Scotland, leading to a near-total cessation of contact with their father four years prior to his death. The father’s last will, made shortly before his passing, left his estate, valued between £500,000 and £750,000, to his parents and new partner, excluding his two children who were beneficiaries in a previous will made in 2013.

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, children of the deceased are entitled to apply for reasonable financial provision from the estate if they believe the will does not adequately provide for them. The Act specifies that such provision should be reasonable for their maintenance.

At the time the claim was made, both sons were minors and attending school. By the hearing, the older son had reached adulthood and was attending university. The court concluded that it was not justifiable to shift the entire maintenance obligation onto the deceased’s estate, emphasizing that the mother and her new husband should also contribute to their sons’ upkeep.

The judge’s ruling underscored that only in exceptional circumstances would the court agree that the obligation to maintain had been completely severed, highlighting that the concept of a clean break does not typically apply to child maintenance. Furthermore, the court acknowledged its authority under the 1975 Act to backdate maintenance awards to the date of death or a later appropriate date.

After a thorough review of the sons’ estimated expenses, the court awarded £68,022 to son J and £117,962 to son H. These amounts were intended to cover half of the sons’ home living costs, university expenses, driving costs, and living costs for a year post-university, including an element for private education costs.

The judge expressed regret that the deceased’s partner and parents contested the obligation to provide for the sons, suggesting their stance was partly a reaction to the original size of the claim. Despite rejecting a claim for the purchase of a flat for the sons, the court’s decision to have the estate cover significant living and educational expenses marks a significant moment in inheritance law.

This case serves as a poignant reminder of the limitations of disinheritance and the court’s discretion to ensure reasonable provision for dependants, setting a precedent that could influence future estate planning and disputes.