The case of Ames v (1) Jones, (2) Pallikarou, (3) Ames [2016] highlights the Courts approach towards the factors under section 3 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 (\u201c1975 Act\u201d) when considering claims brought by adult children.<\/p>\n
In this case, Michael Ames (\u201cthe Deceased\u201d) died in 2013 leaving his entire Estate, worth around \u00a3700,000, to his wife of 30 years.\u00a0 If she was to pre-decease him, then the Estate was to be split 40% to his only daughter, Danielle Ames (\u201cMs Ames\u201d), and 60% to his two grandchildren (Ms Ames\u2019 children).<\/p>\n
The Deceased\u2019s wife survived him and Ms Ames received nothing from the Estate. She therefore proceeded to bring a claim under the 1975 Act for financial provision.<\/p>\n
It was not in dispute that Ms Ames had legal standing to bring a claim as she was a child of the Deceased.\u00a0 However, the Court made it clear that this in itself does not mean that Ms Ames would be successful in any claim. All the factors in the 1975 Act must be properly considered.<\/p>\n
The Court, in particular, looked at the current and future needs of Ms Ames. She had admitted in Court that she could work, but that she chose not to.\u00a0 This was on the basis that she only knew about the All Frames and Mirrors business her partner owned which would not substantiate two salaries.\u00a0 Ms Ames stated that she did not have the experience to get a job anywhere else.\u00a0 Unsurprisingly, this was not accepted by the Court.<\/p>\n
A further concern raised by the Court was about the true extent of Ms Ames\u2019 household income and expenditure, as her deficit appeared to be around \u00a32,000 per month. Nevertheless, she only had debts of around \u00a315,000, whereas, in the circumstances, her debts should be around \u00a380,000.<\/p>\n
On the other side, the Deceased\u2019s wife had retired and suffered from ill health. This was supported by a GP letter. She was therefore clearly in need of financial provision from the Deceased\u2019s Estate.<\/p>\n
After considering all the factors, the Court concluded that Ms Ames had failed to discharge the burden of proof in relation to her current and future financial needs and resources. The information she had provided was unreliable and inconsistent throughout the Hearing.\u00a0 Furthermore, the Court found her lack of employment was a \u201clifestyle choice\u201d. Ms Ames was unsuccessful in her 1975 Act claim and she was also ordered to pay both parties costs in the matter.<\/p>\n
This case highlights the significance of having consistent, precise and reliable evidence when bringing a claim before the Court. It also reiterates that a child does not have an automatic right to inherit their parents Estates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A recent case has highlighted what the Courts consider when claims are brought forward by adult children on their parents estate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":46,"featured_media":10476,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[12372],"tags":[10527,8526,9059],"class_list":{"0":"post-5023","1":"articles","2":"type-articles","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-contesting-a-will","8":"tag-adult-children","9":"tag-financial-provision","10":"tag-inheritance-act-claims"},"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n