A son who was likely to have been disinherited in his late mother’s will as a result of his own divorce proceedings has been awarded 25% of the residual estate after his 1975 Inheritance Act claim
The case of David Marcus Isaacs v Michael Anthony Green & Ors [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam) centred on three siblings’ claim to their parent’s c. £600,000 estate comprising a property, savings and investments. The case was brought by David, twin of Ruth and brother of Susan, the son of Sybil Isaacs who died in April 2013. In 2002 Sybil and her husband wrote mirror wills leaving the estate to one another, or in the event of their deaths, to their three children.
In 2006 Mrs Sybil Isaacs updated her will, disinheriting David. There is conjecture as to why this occurred; David believed it was because at the time he was going through his own divorce and his mother didn’t was any risk of his ex-wife having any claim on the estate. Opposing the claim, sister Susan suggested he had a poor relationship with his mother, although Mr David Rees KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, added this would not explain his inclusion in the previous Will.
Although the divorce was finalised in 2008, his mother’s Will was not updated and it was agreed by 2011 his mother’s capacity was ‘significantly impaired.’ In 2010 Sybil’s husband died and David moved back in with his mother to care for her in 2011. In 2013 she died and he has remained in the property since.
The 1975 Act claim was brough by David seeking reasonable financial provision from the estate. He claimed to have limited income from state pension and pension credit, no savings, and suffered from multiple health conditions including severe ankle deformities. He initially sought £265,000, later revised to one-third of the estate. Ruth, also in her seventies, had modest savings and income, and shared the property with David. Susan, residing in California, was bed-ridden and suffered from complex medical conditions. Her care was publicly funded through Medicare, and she expressed dissatisfaction with her current placement, seeking to use her inheritance to improve her living conditions.
In arriving at its decision, the court considered the statutory framework under sections 1 and 2 of the Act, with particular emphasis on the meaning of “reasonable financial provision” and “maintenance.” The judge relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s guidance in Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17, where Lord Hughes JSC clarified that maintenance must meet everyday living expenses and may be provided via lump sums rather than periodic payments. The judgment also referenced In re Dennis [1981] 2 All ER 140 and Re Coventry [1980] Ch 461, reinforcing that a moral claim is not a prerequisite but may be relevant in adult child claims.
The opposition the claim, from sister Susan, was grounded in her own financial and medical needs. However, the court found that her care was adequately met through public funding and that her inheritance, even if received in full, would be insufficient to fund private care for more than a limited period. The evidence presented regarding alternative care arrangements lacked specificity and feasibility.
The judge found David had a genuine need for financial provision, particularly for housing. While he did not demonstrate an immediate income shortfall, his frugal lifestyle and reliance on Ruth’s support underscored his vulnerability. The court declined to award David a life interest in the property, citing the modest size of the estate and the impracticality of such an arrangement among siblings of similar age. Instead, the judge awarded David 25% of the residuary estate, with Ruth and Susan each receiving 37.5%. This allocation was deemed sufficient to enable David to secure independent accommodation, while acknowledging his prior benefit from rent-free occupation of the property.
orders under section 2(4) of the Act were made to address ongoing occupation of the property. David and Ruth were granted six months to purchase the property or vacate it, with enforcement of any possession order stayed until 25 January 2026. During this period, they were ordered to pay Susan £1,125 per month, representing 37.5% of the mesne profits claimed by Mr Green. This sum would be deducted from their estate shares.
The judgment also addressed the issue of costs, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hirachand v Hirachand [2024] UKSC 43, which held that legal costs incurred in proceedings under the Act should not be considered in assessing financial needs. Accordingly, Susan was ordered to pay three-quarters of David’s costs, subject to detailed assessment.
