Cut and dried?

Christine Watts challenging the validity of her mother’s will – or a claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 – is one of an increasing number of similar cases.

Siblings and family members often fight after the death of a relative when they believe sufficient financial provision has not been made for them under a will. Watts v Watts [2014] EWHC 668 (Ch) was handed down recently.

When Valerie Watts bequeathed all her £200,000 estate to son Gary after she purportedly executed a new will on her deathbed, daughter Christine challenged its validity. Gary contested the claim having visited his mother every day while she was in hospital, criticised Christine for not doing so and suggesting that this was why Valerie had changed her will. The terms of the disputed will directly contradicted the previous version, which divided the estate equally between the two.

Christine relied on expert evidence to support her allegation that Gary had forged his mother’s signature, and on Jackie Brown, a hospital nurse, who apparently witnessed Valerie’s signature, although she was not present at the time of the alleged execution.

However, the court heard that the will was handwritten at Valerie’s bedside by her sister using a DIY will kit and that Jackie did not see Valerie sign the will, although she did report seeing Gary sign a document that she later learned was a will. Gary subsequently admitted to misleading Jackie and it was considered that he had also attempted
to manipulate the information that
Jackie later provided to Christine’s
legal team.

The judge preferred Christine’s evidence and held that the will was invalid as on the evidence before her: Gary had forged Valerie’s signature. Accordingly, Valerie’s previous will should be proved dividing her estate equally between Gary and Christine.

Christine’s Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 claim for reasonable financial provision fell away, as Valerie’s previous will made adequate provision for her.

However, the judge considered Christine’s claim in detail in any event. Gary’s responding evidence was that his sister had “done nothing to get a job” while waiting for Valerie to die and anticipating inheritance.

Even if the will had been valid, the judge said that she would have awarded Christine half of Valerie’s estate by way of reasonable financial provision on her claim under the 1975 Act, as any financial help would have improved her situation. This was even though Christine had not been financially dependent on her mother. Christine’s evidence about her health and lack of ability to engage in future employment therefore carried significant weight.

Writing someone out of a will should not be taken lightly and is rarely achieved now. Historically, it was considered that such claims were unlikely to succeed where there was no financial dependency by the child on the parent. The current climate and recent cases, however, have seen an increase in 1975 Act claims suggesting both prevalence and probable victory.

This line of authority looks likely to continue. The law on eligible claimants under the 1975 Act including children (without any need for dependency) has existed for many years, but the perceived status of adult children has changed recently – Watts is a clear warning.

Any attempt to exclude a child from a will before the age of majority or otherwise, or an attempt to provide only a minor interest to a child in a will, whether that child is financially dependent on the testator or not, is likely to be successfully challenged
in many cases.

Therefore, testators will need to give careful thought to the structure of their affairs and the provisions made for their family on their death to avoid a situation whereby their wishes are challenged at the appropriate time. 

James Lister and Katelyn Warner
are associates at Charles Russell
(www.charlesrussell.co.uk)