A landmark legal ruling that saw a woman overturn her mother's will could undermine the right of people to leave their assets to who they wish, lawyers have warned.
Melita Jackson decided not to leave a single penny for her daughter and even wrote a letter explaining why Heather Ilott 'should not expect any inheritance when I die'.
But the 54-year-old has now been awarded more than £160,000 following an eight-year-legal battle, despite being written out of the document after she eloped 37 years ago.
Judges said their decision was influenced by the fact Mrs Jackson had little association with the charities who would benefit from her legacy and that Mrs Ilott had 'real financial need'.
Lawyers now fear the ruling could have widespread ramifications for how wills are drawn up, with people needing to outline in detail why they had left money to certain parties and disinherited others.
Charities have also warned that other benefactors could be deterred from leaving legacies to charities if they fear their wishes would be overruled by the courts.
James Lister, senior associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, told MailOnline the ruling was 'concerning'. But he said the case was 'very fact specific' due to the fact that Ms Ilott had 'financial need'.
He said: 'Charitable beneficiaries in particular will be very concerned about the consequences that this could have in inviting claims against them.
'That the Court of Appeal is apparently willing to make such an award in the face of very clear expressions of wishes by a testator will remain of concern to will draftsmen and beneficiaries alike.'
He added: 'While this judgment will be interpreted as a blow to testamentary freedom, it should be remembered that this is a very fact specific case.
'The Court were clear that the position of the charitable beneficiaries did count against them here, as they had no direct financial need whereas Mrs Ilott plainly did.
Jenifer Gillman, partner at Willans, said: 'The case seems to suggest we are moving towards a position where the courts, regardless of the original intent of the law under which the claim was brought, can simply impose their ideas of what is fair, regardless of the deceased’s clearly expressed wishes.
'What more can be done when a client makes it clear that he or she wishes to exclude or materially limit an adult child’s interest in the estate?'
Meanwhile, Gary Rycroft, a member of the Law Society's wills and equity committee told the Daily Telegraph: 'This ruling is saying that while you can still disinherit your children, you are going to have to explain why and show connections with those you are leaving the money to.
'It is also very important because it seems to be making it easier for adult children to claim for reasonable financial provision in wills and has made the gap wider for them to do that.'
The pair had fallen out when Ms Ilott married her boyfriend at the age of 17 and never reconciled before Ms Jackson's death in 2004.
Expecting a fallout from the estate, Mrs Jackson also instructed the executors of her will to fight any claim Mrs Ilott might make after her death, adding: 'I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate. I have made it clear to my daughter'.
But, despite the 70-year-old leaving her entire £489,000 fortune to three animal charities, the Court of Appeal ruled that her daughter - who was last year granted £50,000 after asking for half of the inheritance - is entitled to a chunk of the money.
In a rare case of its kind, Lady Justice Arden today more than tripled the payout saying that Mrs Jackson had failed to make 'reasonable provision' for her daughter.
Although it is hard for claimants to contest an estate, claimants can overturn wills if they can prove they are not valid or if they can show they have not been given 'reasonable financial provision' - which is often difficult for a self-sufficient adult.
During the case, the court had been told how Mrs Ilott - a mother of five who is still married to her teenage sweetheart Nicholas - was struggling for money and wanted to buy her housing association property in Great Munden, Hertfordshire.
Judges ruled the money, which had been left to the RSPCA, Blue Cross and RSPB, should be awarded to Mrs Ilott due to her 'basic human need' and that it was 'unreasonable' to leave her daughter with nothing.
Mrs Ilott had also argued it was a derivative fortune from assets belonging to her father Thomas Jackson, who died in an industrial accident two months before she was born.
Barrister Brie Stevens-Hoare QC said the family had been kept off the housing ladder and had 'never had a holiday'.
'She had difficulty affording clothes for her family, was limited in the food she could buy and much of what she had was old or second hand,' she said.
She also told the court that Mrs Jackson was 'unreasonable, capricious and harsh' and had left her money to charity to spite her - not because she supported the charities' work - in a 'picture of irrationality'.
She said: 'Mrs Jackson took offence at Heather's choices although they were choices she was entitled to make and it was reasonable to expect her mother to accept.
'Instead her mother consistently undermined reconciliation attempts. Although Heather was at some fault, her mother was the dominant cause.'
Yesterday, following a lengthy series of legal appeals and challenges, the panel of three judges ordered she should be given £143,000 to buy her housing association home, plus a further £20,000 to cover her expenses. The rest of the inheritance will still go to charity.
Following the judgement, James Aspden, solicitor for the three charities said they were 'surprised and disappointed' by the court's decision.
He added: 'Charities rely upon income from legacies and the outcome of this case could have serious ramifications for the future of the charity sector as a whole.
'Nearly £2billion a year is donated to charitable causes through legacies and, without it, much of their work would not be possible.
'This case also raises serious questions about whether people generally have the freedom to choose who they want to leave money to in their will'.
Mr Aspden said the charities would now give 'very careful consideration' to the case before deciding whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The solicitor added: 'This is a worrying decision for anyone who values having the freedom to choose who will receive their property when they die'.
Sally de la Bedoyere, chief executive of the Blue Cross charity, said: 'Blue Cross depends on the generosity of our supporters and, as such, we will always endeavour to fulfil their wishes.
'Over the past eight years we have defended the wishes of Mrs Jackson to the very best of our abilities. We are deeply saddened that the courts have decided not to honour them'.
Mike Clarke, the RSPB's chief executive, said: 'It is regrettable that, occasionally, courts need to become involved in interpreting the terms of a person's will.
'Not only is it damaging to the work of charities, but it may also cause concern to people who intend to leave a gift to a charity they feel passionately about'.
David Bowles, assistant director the RSPCA, said: 'Legacy income pays for one out of every two animals we save and without it, much of our work would not be possible.
'This court decision goes against a person's desire to give their money to whomever they wish.
'We are immensely grateful for the kindness of people like Mrs Jackson who choose to remember the needs of animals in her will.
'And we hope that this does not stop others continuing to give money to help suffering animals'.
Read more
Melita Jackson decided not to leave a single penny for her daughter and even wrote a letter explaining why Heather Ilott 'should not expect any inheritance when I die'.
But the 54-year-old has now been awarded more than £160,000 following an eight-year-legal battle, despite being written out of the document after she eloped 37 years ago.
Judges said their decision was influenced by the fact Mrs Jackson had little association with the charities who would benefit from her legacy and that Mrs Ilott had 'real financial need'.
Lawyers now fear the ruling could have widespread ramifications for how wills are drawn up, with people needing to outline in detail why they had left money to certain parties and disinherited others.
Charities have also warned that other benefactors could be deterred from leaving legacies to charities if they fear their wishes would be overruled by the courts.
James Lister, senior associate at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, told MailOnline the ruling was 'concerning'. But he said the case was 'very fact specific' due to the fact that Ms Ilott had 'financial need'.
He said: 'Charitable beneficiaries in particular will be very concerned about the consequences that this could have in inviting claims against them.
'That the Court of Appeal is apparently willing to make such an award in the face of very clear expressions of wishes by a testator will remain of concern to will draftsmen and beneficiaries alike.'
He added: 'While this judgment will be interpreted as a blow to testamentary freedom, it should be remembered that this is a very fact specific case.
'The Court were clear that the position of the charitable beneficiaries did count against them here, as they had no direct financial need whereas Mrs Ilott plainly did.
Jenifer Gillman, partner at Willans, said: 'The case seems to suggest we are moving towards a position where the courts, regardless of the original intent of the law under which the claim was brought, can simply impose their ideas of what is fair, regardless of the deceased’s clearly expressed wishes.
'What more can be done when a client makes it clear that he or she wishes to exclude or materially limit an adult child’s interest in the estate?'
Meanwhile, Gary Rycroft, a member of the Law Society's wills and equity committee told the Daily Telegraph: 'This ruling is saying that while you can still disinherit your children, you are going to have to explain why and show connections with those you are leaving the money to.
The pair had fallen out when Ms Ilott married her boyfriend at the age of 17 and never reconciled before Ms Jackson's death in 2004.
Expecting a fallout from the estate, Mrs Jackson also instructed the executors of her will to fight any claim Mrs Ilott might make after her death, adding: 'I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate. I have made it clear to my daughter'.
But, despite the 70-year-old leaving her entire £489,000 fortune to three animal charities, the Court of Appeal ruled that her daughter - who was last year granted £50,000 after asking for half of the inheritance - is entitled to a chunk of the money.
In a rare case of its kind, Lady Justice Arden today more than tripled the payout saying that Mrs Jackson had failed to make 'reasonable provision' for her daughter.
Although it is hard for claimants to contest an estate, claimants can overturn wills if they can prove they are not valid or if they can show they have not been given 'reasonable financial provision' - which is often difficult for a self-sufficient adult.
During the case, the court had been told how Mrs Ilott - a mother of five who is still married to her teenage sweetheart Nicholas - was struggling for money and wanted to buy her housing association property in Great Munden, Hertfordshire.
Judges ruled the money, which had been left to the RSPCA, Blue Cross and RSPB, should be awarded to Mrs Ilott due to her 'basic human need' and that it was 'unreasonable' to leave her daughter with nothing.
Mrs Ilott had also argued it was a derivative fortune from assets belonging to her father Thomas Jackson, who died in an industrial accident two months before she was born.
Barrister Brie Stevens-Hoare QC said the family had been kept off the housing ladder and had 'never had a holiday'.
'She had difficulty affording clothes for her family, was limited in the food she could buy and much of what she had was old or second hand,' she said.
She also told the court that Mrs Jackson was 'unreasonable, capricious and harsh' and had left her money to charity to spite her - not because she supported the charities' work - in a 'picture of irrationality'.
She said: 'Mrs Jackson took offence at Heather's choices although they were choices she was entitled to make and it was reasonable to expect her mother to accept.
'Instead her mother consistently undermined reconciliation attempts. Although Heather was at some fault, her mother was the dominant cause.'
Yesterday, following a lengthy series of legal appeals and challenges, the panel of three judges ordered she should be given £143,000 to buy her housing association home, plus a further £20,000 to cover her expenses. The rest of the inheritance will still go to charity.
Following the judgement, James Aspden, solicitor for the three charities said they were 'surprised and disappointed' by the court's decision.
He added: 'Charities rely upon income from legacies and the outcome of this case could have serious ramifications for the future of the charity sector as a whole.
'Nearly £2billion a year is donated to charitable causes through legacies and, without it, much of their work would not be possible.
'This case also raises serious questions about whether people generally have the freedom to choose who they want to leave money to in their will'.
Mr Aspden said the charities would now give 'very careful consideration' to the case before deciding whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The solicitor added: 'This is a worrying decision for anyone who values having the freedom to choose who will receive their property when they die'.
Sally de la Bedoyere, chief executive of the Blue Cross charity, said: 'Blue Cross depends on the generosity of our supporters and, as such, we will always endeavour to fulfil their wishes.
'Over the past eight years we have defended the wishes of Mrs Jackson to the very best of our abilities. We are deeply saddened that the courts have decided not to honour them'.
Mike Clarke, the RSPB's chief executive, said: 'It is regrettable that, occasionally, courts need to become involved in interpreting the terms of a person's will.
'Not only is it damaging to the work of charities, but it may also cause concern to people who intend to leave a gift to a charity they feel passionately about'.
David Bowles, assistant director the RSPCA, said: 'Legacy income pays for one out of every two animals we save and without it, much of our work would not be possible.
'This court decision goes against a person's desire to give their money to whomever they wish.
'We are immensely grateful for the kindness of people like Mrs Jackson who choose to remember the needs of animals in her will.
'And we hope that this does not stop others continuing to give money to help suffering animals'.
Read more
0 comments:
Post a Comment