Analysis
Wynford Hodge died on 4 February 2017 leaving a will under which he gave his residuary estate to the fourth and fifth defendants, who were tenants of one of the deceased’s properties. He made no provision for his partner, the Claimant, with whom he had lived as man and wife for 42 years. It was accepted that the Claimant was financially dependent upon the deceased immediately before his death.
In 2016 the deceased had purchased a cottage with a view to residing there with the Claimant. However, due to ill health, this plan never came to fruition. The deceased died leaving a net estate valued at £1,535,060 of which £168,000 was in liquid assets and the remainder in property, including several residential properties.
The deceased left a letter of wishes stating that he had made no provision for the claimant because he did not wish her children to benefit from his estate, she would be unable to live independently and she was ‘financially comfortable’.
At the date of trial the Claimant, aged 79, was residing in a nursing home and had savings of some £2,500, with an income from state benefits of £1,114 per month. Expert evidence was given as to her care needs, stating that she was capable of living independently and that it would be in her interests for her to be cared for by her son and daughter-in-law, with whom she was recently reconciled.
It was conceded by the fourth and fifth defendants, subject to certain evidence being accepted, that the will did not make reasonable financial provision for the Claimant. The Claimant sought an order that the cottage purchased in 2016 should be conveyed into the Claimant’s sole name, and a further monetary award to cover likely adaptation, maintenance and future care costs. The defendant beneficiaries sought an order in accordance with an open offer made by them, being a grant of a life interest in certain properties, to be managed by the defendants for which they would be paid a salary.
The issue to be determined was what reasonable financial provision should be made for the Claimant’s maintenance?
Held
1) An important factor was the deceased’s obligations and responsibilities towards the Claimant, in contrast to those he had towards the defendant beneficiaries. The claimant was dependent upon the deceased, both financially and as her principal carer. This responsibility had been acknowledged in earlier wills and letters of wishes. By contrast, the deceased assumed little if any responsibility towards the defendant beneficiaries. The claimant’s age and the length of cohabitation were also relevant factors.
2) The deceased had correctly foreseen that the claimant would not be able to live independently, but did not appear to have considered whether she would be able to live in her own home with an appropriate care package. His assertion that she would be financially comfortable did not reflect the reality at the date of trial. The motive to keep his assets out of the hands of the claimant’s children did not justify the failure to make reasonable financial provision.
3) It would not be reasonable to provide for the claimant’s accommodation away from the farm which had been her home for 42 years and where she wanted to live. In light of the long period of cohabitation and the need for her son and daughter-in-law to provide care at the property, it was reasonable for the cottage purchased in 2016 to be conveyed outright to the claimant, so that the defendants should have no interest in her home. Despite the deceased’s wishes that the claimant’s children should not benefit from his estate, it was reasonable to provide an outright interest for the claimant’s maintenance.
4) In addition, a financial award would be made to provide for moving costs, renovations and adaptations to the claimant’s home in the sum of £28,844.68. For the costs of future care, an appropriate annual sum after benefits was £23,154.76. Applying the Duxbury tables, the appropriate multiplier for the Claimant was 11.6, resulting in a capital sum of £160,000, slightly rounded down to take account of early receipt.
JUDGMENT HH JUDGE JARMAN QC: Introduction [1] The claimant Joan Thompson claims reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 out of the estate of her late partner, Wynford Hodge, who died on 4 February 2017 in his 90s. His last will, of many, was dated 19 December 2016 (the …Continue reading "Thompson v Raggett & ors [2018] WTLR 1027"