Copied from website - could OP claim under the below provision act 1975???
If you want to exclude a child from your will, you may need to make your reasons clearer than ever – thanks to caselaw, there’s a stronger chance than ever that your wishes could be overruled, even if they are in your will.
What happened?
The case was brought in 2015 by one Heather Ilott against her mother, Melita Jackson, who passed away in 2004. Ms Ilott, an only child, became estranged from her mother at age 17 after leaving live with her boyfriend (now husband).
Ms Jackson never forgave her, and with her final will, created in 2002, she included a letter explaining her reasons to disinherit her daughter. She instead left her entire £486,000 estate to three animal charities.
After her mother’s death, Ms Ilott contested the will, on the grounds that Ms Jackson had not made “reasonable provision” for her.
The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 allows for family and dependants to apply for provision from the estate of someone who has passed away, if they can show that it is needed for their maintenance (and that the estate can provide for it).
Ms Ilott argued that she should receive a share of her mother’s estate. The courts agreed – she was initially awarded £50,000 back in 2007.
After having this ruling overturned, she took the case to the court of appeal, who ruled that Ms Ilott should receive £164,000, enough to buy her housing association home and leave her with £20,000 to supplement her and her husband’s income.
The case was then heard in the Supreme Court who overturned the decision by the Court of Appeal to increase her claim to £164,000, but upheld the original Courts decision to award her with £50,000.
How could this happen?
Melita Jackson left specific instructions for the executors of her estate to resist any attempts from her daughter to challenge the will. However, they were ultimately unable to prevent appeal judges from awarding a portion of the estate to Ms Ilott.
The judges decided that, despite her mother’s objections, Ms Ilott should receive some provision from the estate. Ms Ilott is a full-time mother of five children; she receives benefits, and has no pension. Her family’s only other source of income is from her husband’s work as a mechanic.
Judges said that Ms Jackson had “acted in an unreasonable, capricious and harsh way towards her only child”.
Another key factor behind the decision was the fact that Ms Jackson had “no connection” to the three charities who stood to benefit from the Will – Blue Cross, RSPB and the RSPCA.
Regardless of her mother’s wishes, Ms Ilott believes that her father, who died before she was born, would have wanted her to benefit from the estate. “This was money my mother inherited as a result of my father’s death and, regardless of how she felt about me, I strongly believe he would have wanted provision made for me,” she said.