Having an out of date Will can mean no reasonable financial provision and lead to unexpected and acrimonious litigation that can be very expensive. The recent case of Martin v Williams [2017] EWHC 491 (Ch) illustrates this as follows:-
Facts
1. Mrs Martin was married to Mr Martin when he died.
2. They had lived apart since mid 1994, but continued in business for a period and maintained joint accounts into which both paid and from which both drew.
3. From that date Mr Martin began living with Mrs Williams.
4. Mr Martin’s Will was dated 29 April 1986 and had a codicil dated 23 November 1995.
5. Mr. Martin left the entirety of his residual estate to Mrs. Martin.
6. Mrs. Martin, as sole executrix, took out a grant of probate on 1 September 2014.
7. Mr. Martin and Mrs. Williams lived together as man and wife in a loving relationship for years.
8. From 2009 they lived in a property jointly owned by them as “tenants in common” in equal shares.
9. Mr Martin’s share of the jointly owned property passed to Mrs Martin on his death.
10. After Mr. Martin’s death all joint accounts vested in Mrs. Martin alone and therefore any money withdrawn to maintain his lifestyle with Mrs. Williams ceased.
11. Mrs. Williams commenced proceedings under s.2 of the Inheritance (Provision of Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (“1975 Act”) for “reasonable financial provision” out of Mr Martin’s estate.
The Trial
The Judge found that Mrs Williams was a person falling within the meaning of s1(1)(ba) of the 1975 Act.
It was clear that Mrs Williams was a person “who immediately before the death of the deceased was being maintained, either wholly or partly, by the deceased.”
The Judge also disregarded Mrs William’s half share in a property she inherited from her father in 2008, valued at £135k. Her sister lived rent free in the property.
The trial Judge found that Mr Martin’s Will did not make “reasonable financial provision” under the 1975 Act and transferred to her Mr Martin’s 50% share in the property.
Appeal
Mrs Martin appealed on five grounds to the High Court Chancery Division.
The appeal on Grounds 1A did not proceed on whether Mrs Williams had standing to bring a Claim under the 1975 Act but only on the question of to what extent (if any) was “reasonable financial provision” made in the Will. This tied in with Ground 2 in that the court concluded that Mr Martin had maintained Mrs Williams prior to his death.
To bring a claim under the 1975 Act the court had to ask three questions:
1. Does the Claimant (Mrs Williams) have standing to apply to the court for an order under section 2 of the 1975 Act?
2. Has the deceased’s estate made reasonable financial provision for the claimant’s maintenance?
3. If the court is satisfied that reasonable financial provision has not been made, it must consider what provision should be made.
This is where the due exercise of discretion comes in.
The first question was not challenged and the trial judge found that the Claimant fell with section 1(1)(ba) of the 1975 Act.
The second question, required a binary yes/no answer, whereas the third required discretion.
The latter two questions overlapped to a degree. Grounds 1A and 2 were rejected. However the appeal succeeded on grounds 3, that the relief granted was excessive – being the transfer to Mrs Williams of Mr Martin’s 50% share in the jointly owned property, 4 – in assessing her financial position
the trial failed to take into account Mrs Williams 50% share of the property inherited in 2008 and 5, the trial judge made unsustainable inferences regarding Mrs Martin’s financial position.
One of the most striking issues about this case are the costs of bringing proceedings. This is confirmed by Counsel for both parties who, “submitted that to remit matters for a re-trial would be disproportionately expensive”, and urged the Appeal Judge “(in the event it was necessary to do so) for him to re-visit the Trial Judge’s exercise of his discretion….”
Mrs Williams was awarded a life interest in the property she shared with the deceased prior to his demise. Mrs Martin or her estate benefited from the reversionary interest. These are the consequences of there being an out of date Will and the competing interests of an estranged wife and simply living together.
