“Something More” – Inheritance Act Claims by Adult Children in Isaacs v Green

The case of Isaacs v Green provides an insightful example of an adult child successfully claiming under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act). In this case, David Isaacs, aged 74, initially received nothing from his deceased mother's will. However, after presenting his evidence, the court awarded him 25% of her residuary estate.

The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act)

The 1975 Act empowers the court to alter the distribution of a deceased's estate, if it determines that the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for a dependant. The standard of what is 'reasonable' varies depending on the claimant's relationship to the deceased. For spouses, the standard is simply what is reasonable for them to receive, whereas for other claimants, it is what is reasonable only for their maintenance, taking into account "all the circumstances of the case."

When evaluating the circumstances of the case, the court considers various factors, such as the claimant's financial resources and needs, any obligations or responsibilities the deceased had towards the claimant, and any disabilities affecting the claimant or other beneficiaries.

Claims by adult children under the 1975 Act are generally more challenging to succeed on compared to those by minor children, who typically have clear financial needs and an obvious dependency on the deceased. Adult children often succeed in their claims only when there are additional factors, such as a disability, evidence of financial dependency or other extenuating circumstances, like involvement in a family business with an expectation of inheritance. In Ilott v Mitson [2017], Lord Hughes emphasised that for adult children, "something more" than a mere parent-child relationship and financial need is necessary to justify altering the testator's dispositions.

Isaacs v Green

In the case of Isaacs v Green, Mrs Isaacs's will divided her estate between her daughters, Ruth and Susan, and excluded her son David. While Ruth supported David's 1975 Act claim, Susan opposed it. David was retired, had a low income and lived in his late mother's house with Ruth. Losing the case would have left them homeless. Susan, meanwhile, suffered from various complex medical conditions and was cared for in a residential facility in the USA, funded by Medicare. She disliked her current living conditions and wished to move to a better facility. The judge was therefore faced with a situation where both the claimant and all the beneficiaries of the estate were in financial need.

A further interesting aspect of the case was the discussion around David’s expenses. Though he lived modestly, David was a keen collector and spent around £450 per month on commemorative coins and stamps. The judge however felt that this did not detract from his case – David did not drink, smoke, eat out or indulge in any holidays or other hobbies. He was only able to spend so much on coins due to “great frugality in other areas of his life”. Overall, the judge felt that the meaning of "maintenance" was not so narrow that claimants should be expected to entirely forgo any of their interests, and ruled that David had demonstrated neither an income need nor a surplus.

David was ultimately awarded 25% of the estate, approximately £150,000, with the remainder shared equally between Ruth and Susan – largely to enable David to rehouse himself, or to aid in him and Ruth buying the family property. Evidence revealed that Mrs Isaacs had initially made a will in 2002 leaving her estate equally to all her children – she had then amended its terms in 2006 to exclude David. Susan claimed that this was simply because Mrs Isaacs disliked David. However, it was found that the exclusion was due to Mrs Isaacs’ concerns about the financial repercussions of David’s divorce, and had not necessarily reflected a poor relationship. This was sufficient to function as the “something more” factor which persuaded the judge to make financial provision for David.

This case underscores the complexities involved in adult child claims under the 1975 Act and illustrates how courts balance the testator's intentions with the claimant's needs and circumstances. When acting in these types of cases, it is also important to factor in the effect of costs, as any costs award the Court makes could significantly impact the practical financial outcome for the Claimant and the other beneficiaries.