Blog
Rayner my parade! The importance of specialist advice.
Jemma Brimblecombe
This quarterly contentious trust and probate litigation update provides a summary of a cross-section of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period July 2022 - September 2022.
The High Court has dismissed a wife’s claim for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
Christopher Ramus (“the Deceased”) and Elizabeth Ramus had been married for 48 years by the time of the Deceased’s death in 2020 but were recently separated and living apart. The Deceased and Elizabeth had two children, Claire Holt and Alistair Ramus, and five grandchildren.
The Deceased’s will dated 30 April 2014 placed the residuary estate on trust in which Elizabeth had a life interest (“the Trust”). The trustees had power to apply capital for Elizabeth’s benefit but also power to terminate her life interest. The class of discretionary beneficiaries to benefit from the Trust aside from the life interest included Claire, Alistair and their children.
Claire was named as one of the trustees of the Trust (alongside two close friends of the Deceased). Elizabeth had a difficult relationship with her daughter and was concerned that this might influence her decision making. Elizabeth made a claim under the 1975 Act on the basis that she did not have confidence that she would receive the income and/or capital from the Trust which she would need in order to maintain her lifestyle and because her future financial security was solely down to the trustees she did not consider that the Will made reasonable financial provision for her.
Judge Mark West found that the value of Elizabeth’s personal assets was significantly more than the quantum of the Deceased’s estate and she had sufficient resources to meet her needs. The judge went on to say that in all likelihood Elizabeth would not have received anything on divorce (on the divorce cross-check) and even after the purchase of a property would have financial autonomy and substantial net assets. He concluded that he was satisfied that the disposition of the Deceased’s estate under the terms of his will was such as to make financial provision for Elizabeth in the circumstances of the case. Furthermore he was satisfied that he had no jurisdiction under the 1975 Act to remove the trustees and also considered that such a power would undermine the law concerning the removal of trustees under other statutory provisions in other areas.
The High Court has found a will created after the Deceased’s death to be a forgery and that the defendants to the claim were parties to its creation or at least knew that it was a forgery.
Bernard Dimberline (“the Deceased”) died on 11 October 2017. One of his daughters, Colleen Cropper, was granted letters of administration by a grant dated 6 September 2019 on the basis that the Deceased had died intestate and sought a declaration from the Court on that basis. The Deceased’s partner of 30 years, Kim Dimberline, and her son, Mark Dimberline, had administered the Deceased’s estate according to a purported will of Mr Dimberline dated 27 May 2017 (“the Disputed Will”). Mark was named as an executor in the Disputed Will. Mark and his now ex wife, Katie, were the attesting witnesses. The Deceased had six biological children and two step children.
Ms Cropper said that the Disputed Will came into existence after the death of the Deceased and both the Deceased’s signature and Katie’s signature had been forged. Mark said that he had assisted in the preparation of the Disputed Will and that the Deceased signed the Will and both he and Katie witnessed the Deceased’s signature.
His Honour Judge Davis-White QC considered that the evidence supported the Claimant’s version of events that the Disputed Will was created when it was realised that under the intestacy rules Elaine would get nothing because she had not been married to the Deceased. The judge said that he had “little doubt” that the defendants felt that they were ensuring that the Deceased’s wishes were carried out in relation to the estate however “the law lays down formalities as to how property is to be disposed of on death and it is not for persons after a deceased's death to try and put in place documents which will give effect to what they think the deceased's intention would have been”.
Katherine Pymont is a Senior Associate in our Dispute Resolution team. She specialises in Wills, Trusts and Inheritance Disputes. Katherine's experience includes challenging the validity of wills (including claims for lack of testamentary capacity, want of knowledge and approval, fraud, forgery and undue influence), claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, removal of executors and trustees, breach of trust claims, fraud cases involving trust structures and professional negligence claims relating to wills and trusts.
We welcome views and opinions about the issues raised in this blog. Should you require specific advice in relation to personal circumstances, please use the form on the contact page.
Jemma Brimblecombe
Charles Richardson
Oliver Oldman
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility
Share insightLinkedIn X Facebook Email to a friend Print