Disabled adult wins Inheritance Claim against late mothers estate

Disabled adult wins Inheritance Claim against late mothers estate

A recent inheritance claim case, saw a disabled adult win £195,000 from his late mother’s estate. This was despite him being left out of her Will. The estate’s executor and beneficiary subsequently lost an appeal, as the appeal court upheld the original decision. We take a look at this Inheritance Claim Win.

Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, certain individuals are entitled to make a claim against an estate if they are left without ‘reasonable financial provision’. This includes the deceased’s children, spouse, civil partner, former spouse or civil partner. Also considered is someone who was living with the deceased for at least two years before their death. Alternatively it could be someone who was treated like a child by the deceased or was maintained financially by the deceased.

The recent case of Fennessy v Turner 2022 brought under this Act was successful for the claimant.

Fennessy v Turner 2022 – The facts
The case was brought by Patrick Fennessy, the 60-year-old son of Hazel Fennessy who died in 2020. Her Will left everything in her estate, net value of £336,089, to a Mrs June Turner. Mrs Turner is a vet by profession. It was noted that she had adequate means of support and did not need the money from the estate to support herself.

Mr Fennessy had been granted a 25-year lease of the family coal yard at a peppercorn rent. Previously his mother and late sister Heidi had assured him that he would inherit ‘everything’ in due course. His sister predeceased his mother by six weeks.

In 2011, it was suggested that Mr Fennessy move in with Hazel and Heidi however Mr Fennessy rejected this suggestion. Therefore it is likely this discussion led to his mother and sister deciding to draw up Wills that excluded him.

He was uninformed about the terms of the Wills and continued in a dutiful relationship with his mother.

In 2019, he said that he owned the freehold of the coal yard, prompting his sister to want to cut him off. Consequently she also influenced their mother not to contact him. His sister died shortly before their mother.

Mr Fennessy had very limited means and lived very frugally. Due to his disability he could only work part-time in a pub. There was no prospect of increasing his hours because of his health. Living in a motorhome with the cold and damp was not appropriate considering he suffered badly from osteoarthritis.

The judgment

The judge awarded Mr Fennessy just over £195,000 from the estate. This was considered a reasonable financial provision to make up Mr Fennessy’s deficit in income. Also taken into account was his need for additional financial assistance to help with housing, furniture and white goods. In addition he also had to pay the success fees to his solicitor and barrister under his conditional fee agreements with them.

Mr Fennessy had made an early offer to Mrs Turner to settle the case for a much lower sum, which she chose to decline. Beating this offer at trial, he was also awarded his costs as well as a penalty of 10% and interest at the rate of 5%, payable personally by Mrs Turner.

The appeal

Mrs Turner appealed the decision. The appeal court upheld the decision and made the following points:

  • While the payment could be considered generous, it was not beyond generous. The fact that it was generous was no reason for the appeal court to change the amount payable.
  • The promises made to the claimant gave rise to a moral claim, even though they were not particularly clear.
  • While people have testamentary freedom, or the right to leave their estate wherever they choose, this does not have overriding importance when considering the Inheritance Act.
  • It was right that the original judge took a costs-blind approach as it could not have been anticipated that Mr Fennessy would receive his costs. Nor could it be forseen that Mrs Turner would receive very little of the estate as she was required to pay the costs.
Lessons from the case

The appeal court noted that Mrs Turner did not accept the reasonable and low offer to settle that the claimant made early on. She chose to press on with the case. Sensible offers to settle should be properly considered and attempts made to find a resolution without the need for a trial.

The Inheritance Act should not be underestimated. Even if the testator has set out different wishes, there is no guarantee that these will be followed. The Act exists to ensure that those in financial need receive enough for their maintenance.

Contact Us

If you would like to speak to one of our experts call us FREE on 0800 781 6658 or email us at enquiries@estplan.co.uk