Testamentary Intentions Must be Clear
A judgment by the Court of Appeal illustrates that when someone dies without making it clear who should inherit their estate, this can result in a prolonged court battle and an outcome that may be very different from what the deceased person intended. It also illustrates that the courts are generally unwilling to impute into agreements things which are not there.
In 2007, the High Court ruled that a farmer who helped a relative run his farm for more than 20 years should be awarded the property. David Thorner started helping his cousin, Peter Thorner, run his 400 acre farm in Somerset when Peter began to suffer from ill health. What was at first a temporary measure became a lifetime of commitment, as David spent the next 25 years working on the farm without taking a holiday and sometimes working up to 18 hours a day. He was never paid for his work, only receiving a modest allowance from his parents.
Peter Thorner revoked a will he had made in 1997, in order to exclude one of the beneficiaries, and never made another. The will had left the farm and most of his estate to David. On Peter’s death in 2005, as no will could be found, the laws of intestacy applied. In such cases, the estate passes to the nearest relatives.
In the High Court, David argued that the two men had an understanding that on Peter’s death David would inherit the farm and it would therefore be unfair to divide the estate according to the intestacy laws. The Court was satisfied that his cousin intended him to have the property and awarded him the farm and the agricultural assets. Non-agricultural assets of approximately £1m were awarded to Peter’s relatives.
Two of Peter’s sisters and a niece appealed against this decision and three appeal judges have now ruled that although David had a ‘strong moral claim’ regarding the property, the claim should not have been upheld and it would be a ‘dangerous precedent’ for him to inherit the property. Whatever Peter Thorner’s wishes were, there was no evidence that he had made a firm promise to David that he would inherit the farm.
Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused and David Thorner was ordered to pay legal costs.
Peter Thorner revoked a will he had made in 1997, in order to exclude one of the beneficiaries, and never made another. The will had left the farm and most of his estate to David. On Peter’s death in 2005, as no will could be found, the laws of intestacy applied. In such cases, the estate passes to the nearest relatives.
In the High Court, David argued that the two men had an understanding that on Peter’s death David would inherit the farm and it would therefore be unfair to divide the estate according to the intestacy laws. The Court was satisfied that his cousin intended him to have the property and awarded him the farm and the agricultural assets. Non-agricultural assets of approximately £1m were awarded to Peter’s relatives.
Two of Peter’s sisters and a niece appealed against this decision and three appeal judges have now ruled that although David had a ‘strong moral claim’ regarding the property, the claim should not have been upheld and it would be a ‘dangerous precedent’ for him to inherit the property. Whatever Peter Thorner’s wishes were, there was no evidence that he had made a firm promise to David that he would inherit the farm.
Permission to appeal to the House of Lords was refused and David Thorner was ordered to pay legal costs.
|
|
Adrian
Bennett
|
Mr Thorner’s failure to leave a valid will resulted in years of legal wrangling to divide up his estate. All of that expenditure was avoidable. If you have a relative who has assets and is intestate, they may not realise the benefits of making or the consequences of not making a will. The laws of intestacy are often not fair and, as is illustrated in this case, a moral claim, however strong, is not the same as a legal right. 
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
