A friend’s mother’s partner has recently died.
They had lived together for 20 years.
The estate is worth 200k and she’s been left 1k
She’s a bit distressed by this although doesn’t really need the cash.
The main beneficiaries are the deceased’s sister and her family.

It strikes me that as she was effectively his wife, although they weren’t married, she may have a case to challenge the will for a greater share.

Yes she will speak to the beneficiaries and get a solicitor, but if any of the legal types had a view it would be useful to know.

Edit: in England if that makes any difference

Whaddya think?

geoffj – Member
Whaddya think?

Not a lawyer whatever … but yes challenge it for the following reasons because something is just no right:

1. Effectively his wife.

2. Live together perhaps even looked after him.

3. They were a couple and should therefore be seen as his immediate family i.e. partner.

4. He should have told her about his will that she excluded her etc.

5. In a divorce you get to share whatever and I guess this is not much different.

If the partner intentionally excluded her out without even given her a penny then she was living with a mean person for many years without knowing.

I don’t know why people are not honest enough to tell their love ones about their will especially their partner …

If you are writing a will then just let your children know who gets what and who gets sod all …

😮

I think wills are one are where being almost his wife and actually his wife are rather different things. He appears to have left very specific provisions and it would take some convincing that this was not his reasonable intention if the will was expressly written to give her £1k

poly – Member
I think wills are one are where being almost his wife and actually his wife are rather different things.

Yes, on paper they were not married but did he shag/sleep with her? If so what is she?

That’s the reason why I consider the man/partner mean, if intentionally, for not leaving a penny to her if she was looking after him or lived with him for 20 years. He had his fill so at least showed some decency to leave her something … He owned her that at least otherwise his action is not different to having a servant. Even servant get paid.

😯

Apologies for the blatant cut and paste.She has a potential claim
“How to contest a will?
If you believe that you have unreasonably been left out of a will, you may be able to apply for reasonable financial provision from the deceased estate pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family Independence) Act 1975 (“Inheritance Act”). The Inheritance Act essentially details several hurdles in which a person needs to overcome, in order to obtain reasonable financial provision from the deceased’s estate. The first hurdle being the category of persons entitled to bring a claim.

First hurdle in Inheritance Disputes: categories of claimant

To bring a claim pursuant to the Inheritance Act, a person must be one of the following:

the wife or husband or civil partner of the deceased;
a former wife or former husband or former civil partner of the deceased who has not re-married;
a child of the deceased;
any person treated as a child of the family; or
any persons being maintained by the deceased.
Depending upon which category stated above, there are different factors to be taken into account when determining whether an individual is entitled to reasonable financial provision. These are explored in more detail below.

Second hurdle in Inheritance Disputes: reasonable financial provision

The wife or husband or civil partner of the deceased

The Inheritance Act defines reasonable financial provision in inheritance disputes as being “such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for a husband or wife to receive, whether or not that provision is required for his or her maintenance”.

Where the marriage was continuing at the date of death, the courts will often apply the “deemed divorce test” ie if the spouse had not died and the parties had divorced, what would the parties receive? Factors taken into account when determining this question include the age of the applicant and the duration of the marriage, the contribution made by the applicant to the welfare of the family of the deceased, including any contribution made by looking after the home or caring for the family. In addition, the court will take into account the following factors:

The financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.
The financial resources and financial needs which any other applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.
The financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future.
Any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards any claimant, or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased.
The size and nature of the net estate of the deceased.
Any physical or mental disability of any applicant or beneficiary of the estate of the deceased.
Any other matter, including the conduct of the claimant or any other person which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.
Claims by a person living as husband or wife of the deceased

Reasonable financial provision as defined by the Inheritance Act in such cases is “such financial provision as it would be reasonable in all the circumstances of the case for the applicant to receive for his maintenance”.

When determining maintenance, the court must balance the factors detailed 1 to 7 above. The court will also take into account the age of the applicant and the length of the period in which the applicant lived as husband and wife and in the same household as the deceased. Other factors including the contribution made by the applicant to the welfare of the family of the deceased will also be taken into account.

The court is simply looking at the level of the maintenance the applicant requires for the foreseeable future in order to keep the same standard of living. ”

In reading Crankboy’s c’n’p, it sounds like the only ground of eligibility is “being maintained by the deceased”. As the OP mentioned that the lady concerned “doesn’t really need the cash”, I’d question whether there’s applicability of the required level of dependency here. The small sum mentioned shows that the survivor has not been overlooked, but I can see how this could be seen as more hurtful than a straight omission.

Other grounds of challenge (capacity, undue influence, correction) don’t look to assist (on what’s been posted), so it doesn’t look good. Suggest that she has an hour with a wills, trust & probate partner at a local solicitors, but I reckon it’d be best to try & discuss it with the deceased’ sister and seek an uplift by a little moral thumb-screwing.

Crikey, together 20 years, estate worth 200k and he leaves her 1k.

Absolutely none of my business and might be the least helpful post on this thread, but there’s gotta be a back story hasn’t there?

Crikey, together 20 years, estate worth 200k and he leaves her 1k.
Absolutely none of my business and might be the least helpful post on this thread, but there’s gotta be a back story hasn’t there?

😀

The story, apparently, is that she didn’t know he was worth so much and there were verbal assurances that she would get a fair share even though she knew that his sister was going to also get a share.

But thanks all, especially crankboy and drlex I’ll pass on the information.

My query would be whether she is considered a partner of sorts. If the ‘deemed divorce’ test was applied, being a ‘common law’ wife has no grounding in law, so why would it in death?

Edit;

From the CAB website

Living together

If one partner dies without leaving a will, the surviving partner will not automatically inherit anything unless the couple owned property jointly. As an unmarried couple, you need to make wills if you wish to make sure that the other partner inherits.

If one partner dies without leaving enough in their will for the other to live on, the surviving partner may be able to go to court to claim from the estate.

If you inherit money or property from an unmarried partner, you are not exempt from paying inheritance tax, as married couples are.

For more information about inheritance tax, see Inheritance tax.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

And if as you say she doesn’t really need it, and the fact he has considered her in the will, albeit to a lower than expected degree – I’d say it’s ‘sketchy’

Why doesn’t she need the money?

Why doesn’t she need the money?

She owns the house – she bought it before she shacked up with him AFAIK and she has independent savings and a decent pension again AFAIK

If the deceased was of sound mind when the will was drawn up, not sure there is much scope to challenge it, though a child won an important test case recently iirc.

And a BIG reminder to all of us who co-habit to make damn sure you have got the right set up for your financial and family affairs, dead or alive.

There is no such thing as a common law partner.

She owns the house – she bought it before she shacked up with him AFAIK and she has independent savings and a decent pension again AFAIK

Maybe the sister and her family don’t? That’s why he left it to them?

How old’s the will, out of interest? If it was drawn up 20 years ago and never amended then it will reflect the nature of their relationship then rather than now.

Whether that has any legal bearing I’ve no idea, but it might help comfort the ‘distress’.

How old’s the will, out of interest? If it was drawn up 20 years ago and never amended then it will reflect the nature of their relationship then rather than now.
Whether that has any legal bearing I’ve no idea, but it might help comfort the ‘distress’.

I think that this has a big bearing on it. It refers to his other sister who died around 10 years ago. Apparently there was talk of a revised will after this event, but a later revised version has not been found. I think they need to consider the stress and hassle of a challenge – it may not be worth the potential pain, if options are limited.

Well then,

Legal requirements aside; if it were me and I’d been on the receiving end of a large inheritance based on a decades-old will, leaving the widow (for all practical purposes) with next to nothing then I’d want to do the right thing and donate a percentage of that back to who it should’ve gone to.

Sadly, my experience of the aftermaths of a bereavement is that it tends to bring out the worst in people and “doing the right thing” is often depressingly low on the agenda.

The right thing is to honour the deceaseds wishes and for his estate to go to who he willed it to.

The right thing is to honour the deceaseds wishes and for his estate to go to who he willed it to.

I don’t disagree.

geoffj – Member

The right thing is to honour the deceaseds wishes and for his estate to go to who he willed it to.

I don’t disagree. [/quote]

Or you can always call the deceased back for few minutes, via some channeling whatever those people are called, to verify the truth … ya, I know, I know, many of you think there is no such thing … just a suggestion that’s all. 😮