In 1984, Melita Jackson took the unusual and controversial step of disinheriting her daughter Heather. This decision has resulted in much of controversial and complex legacy law in England and Wales. This case, along with others, has raised national awareness on the personal decision-making about wealth distribution colliding with changing legal standards. Though an individual might wish to bequeath assets as they see fit, laws on the books now restrict this freedom to do so in several important ways.
The legal landscape around inheritance is not so cut-and-dried. The 1975 Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act lets family members dispute a will. If and when they feel they’ve not yet been adequately accommodated, then they can act. This legislation marks an important step in recognizing the rights of dependents and family members. Preston’s case directly challenges a conventional view of testamentary freedom in the extreme. Heather Ilott’s case became a landmark decision when she was awarded £164,000 from her mother’s £486,000 estate after years of estrangement.
Disinheritance cases often reveal deep familial rifts. Jackson and Ilott did not speak for five years after Heather’s marriage, which took place without her mother’s consent. Heather expressed her feelings in a letter to her mother, stating, “I have to accept that you have rejected me.” She further noted, “It is very upsetting to know this but you obviously have your reasons [and] I believe that there is more to your rejection than just my leaving home …”
Other notable cases illustrate similar complexities. Peter Ustinov’s last will, scrawled in pencil on the back of an envelope, was ruled invalid after his death in 2004. Punk innovator Malcolm McLaren disinherited son Joe Corré, leading to an ongoing court case. To Corré’s misfortune, though, he lost his challenge against his dad’s decision in the end. These cases highlight the importance of the formality necessary for valid wills and the sometimes dire effects of informal agreements.
The rising tide of contentious wills in Britain could not be overlooked. Year in and year out, the London Chancellery Court averages the resolution of 633 individual cases every year. These cases involve wills, trusts, and probate matters. This increase indicates a trend that heirs’ claims are being recognized for what they are—important legal issues that deserve the court’s attention.
The principle of “forced heirship” is prevalent across much of Europe. First, it requires that some percentage of an estate necessarily pass to nearest kin. This is a departure from the much more flexible and expansive English and Welsh inheritance practices. These recent rulings have smuggled a tepid brand of forced heirship into the English legal fabric. Ms. Ilott’s case has already reached a landmark turning point. It opens the door for broader forms of relief for adult children who may have been shut out in the past.
Amanda Smallcombe, a private-client solicitor, remarked on the implications of the Ilott case: “My private-client colleagues were absolutely outraged at the first Ilott decision.” She noted that previously, adult children had limited recourse when facing disinheritance, stating, “Generally the people who come to see me are middle-aged children whose mum or dad has remarried … and the middle-aged children are very worried about that inheritance going elsewhere.”
The societal expectation that adult children—especially daughters—will provide in-home care for aging parents is coming under fire, as well. With the prospect of a universal state care system gaining traction, the expectation that adult children will care for their aging parents may diminish. Professor Sarah Harper commented on this shift: “There’s a very traditional generational contract, which is based on support and care in older age.”
Moreover, the concept of early inheritances is catching on. More people are coming to the realization that they would rather give their kids money while they’re living than wait until they die to leave them money. This trend supports paying tuition fees or help with a first mortgage deposit. As Professor Harper noted, “The middle classes across the 20th century wanted to leave something to their children…[but] this idea will be quite short-lived in this country.”
As population ages and the value of real-estate rise and drop, the trend will worry local governments differently when it comes to finding money for long-term care. Professor Harper elaborated on this disparity: “We’re going to have some local authorities with very high house prices. Local authorities in those areas are therefore potentially going to have their care bill reduced. In the rest of the country…when people get old they just don’t have the money to cover their extended health care.”