The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
A landmark ruling by the Court of Appeal could make it easier for adult children to challenge wills if they don’t believe their parents have left them a reasonable provision leading to a rise in the number of wills being disputed.
Heather Ilott’s mother Melita Jackson left her estate worth almost £500k to the RSPCA, RSPB and Blue Cross animal charities after her death in 2004. But Mrs Ilott challenged the will under the Inheritance Act 1975.
Mrs Ilott, now 54, had left home with a boyfriend at the age of 17 and her mother had apparently never forgiven her and excluded her from her will making it clear she did not want her daughter to inherit anything.
However the appeal judges have now ruled that Mrs Ilott, who has five children, was not given a reasonable provision from the estate for her future maintenance as she was on benefits and had no pension. They also added that Mrs Jackson had 'no connection' with the charities during her lifetime.
Mrs Ilott was awarded £143,000 to buy the rented home she lives in from a housing association and a further £20,000 in cash as 'additional income'. An increase from the £50k a previous judge in the High Court had said she should receive.
Speaking of the judgment, Paula Myers, Partner at Irwin Mitchell commented:
'This ruling means people can still disinherit their children but they will have to have a good reason why and be able to explain what connects them to the people or organisations that they have included in their wills instead.
This means that adult children who have been left out of wills may find it easier to challenge them if they have not been left a reasonable provision. It provides further clarity to the Inheritance Act 1975.'