This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.

Search our site

Viewpoints

| less than a minute read

The freedom to choose how you want to leave assets on death is perhaps not as unfettered as you think...

Whilst maybe not the most usual example of the claims financially dependent individuals can bring against an estate, the Marquess of Bath's estate is a colourful one which serves as a lesson to take steps before death to address potential claims. Under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, certain individuals can bring a claim against an estate if they can show that they are not sufficiently provided for. The 1975 Act was thrust into the public eye recently in the Illot case (where an estranged daughter successfully argued for a slice of her mother's estate which had been left wholly to charities under the Will). The impact of the 1975 Act is particularly pertinent where there are, as for the Marquess of Bath, individuals who are provided for financially during lifetime but are written out under the Will. Even if a full commercial agreement dealing with the issue during life isn't appropriate, it is vital to record the reasons why the particular individuals are being excluded from benefit to give the best chance of a robust defence to any challenge if and when it comes.

while he allowed certain “wifelets” to live in cottages on his 10,000-acre estate and safari park, they had to pay rent for the privilege, as well as cover repairs and renovation costs. In his will, he snubbed them completely, leaving everything he owned to his wife, Anna, 78, and his daughter, Lenka and son, Ceawlin Thynn, the current and 8th Marquess of Bath, who is now said to be evicting the last of the wifelets from the estate.

Tags

private client, family law