This is part of a series of case round-ups provided by our Wills & Probate team. Click or tap here to access the whole series.

Background

The Claim was brought by Tony Shearer’s two adult children. Mr Shearer sadly died in 2017 from an aggressive brain tumour. Mr Shearer was financially well off and had a significant sized estate. Mr Shearer had two daughters from his first marriage, Juliet Miles (aged 40) and Lauretta Shearer (aged 38). Their parents separated in 2007. Mr Shearer then later met and married his wife Pamela (the Defendant).

Mr Shearer had made a significant gift to both his children in 2008. Juliet received £177,000 and Lauretta £185,000. After making these gifts Mr Shearer considered this the end of his financial support and made this clear in a letter that he wrote to his children. The relationship between Mr Shearer and daughters was strained and there had been difficulties between them since the time of the daughters’ adolescence. Mr Shearer died leaving a Will which left everything to his wife Pamela and nothing to his daughters.

The Claim

The daughters brought a claim against Mr Shearer’s estate under s1(1)(c) of the Inheritance (Provisions for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 , on the grounds that the Will had not made reasonable financial provisions for them and they had a need for maintenance.

Julie sought funding for housing and the cost of retraining to become a dog behavioural specialist and a loss of income. At the time, Julie and her daughter who is autistic was living with Julie’s mother. The property was large enough to comfortably house them. Julie had £170,000 in capital.

Lauretta claimed for a sum of money to enable her to change her interest only mortgage to a repayment mortgage. She also claimed a further sum that would allow her to buy her ex-husbands share within the property. Lauretta had an annual salary of £70,000 and £300,000 in capital.

The estate was worth £2.2m (although other assets passed outside of the estate to Pamala).

The Court’s Ruling

The Court dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no real need for maintenance. Juliet could realistically receive an income of £15,000 in her job; she also could receive support from her mother.

For Lauretta’s claim, the change of mortgage repayment was not considered to constitute ‘maintenance’. Furthermore, the debt to the husband for equity was deemed to be not foreseeable under the act.

The Judge stated that there was no legal obligation to maintain adult children. The facts of the case showed that although Mr Shearer had provided them with a significant sum of money, Mr Shearer had no obligations or responsibility at the time of death.

Take Aways from The Case

The case demonstrates that even on large estates, the courts will still look into the details of the case and will not make financial provisions for an adult child where it considers no such need has been demonstrated. It also makes it clear that the claimant simply showing they had previously been maintained is not enough, the maintenance must be occurring at the time of death.

Get in touch today

If you would like to find out more about any of the topics covered in our Wills and Estate Dispute case round-ups, get in touch with a member of our team today: 01482 324252.