Even successful challenges to wills can result in financial ruin, as well as significant emotional costs. Alexandra McVean, solicitor in the Contentious Trust and Probate team at Wilsons Solicitors, examines the case of the Isaacs siblings, two of home face homelessness despite winning a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
David and Ruth Isaacs, siblings who had cared for their mother, Sybil Isaacs, for two years before her death, face potential homelessness following a decade-long legal battle over Sybil’s £600,000 estate.
Sybil Isaacs died in 2013, survived by her three children, David, Ruth and Susan. Sybil originally made a will in 2002, leaving her £600,000 estate equally between her children, but changed it in 2008 to exclude David, fearing that his inheritance might be lost in his ongoing divorce.
In 2011 David, now aged 75, moved into Sybil’s house to care for her, alongside Ruth, until Sybil’s death. Despite David’s care, Sybil never reinstated him in her will, leaving her estate solely to Ruth and Susan.
David and Ruth continued to live in Sybil’s property after her death and the estate remained unadministered. In 2020, Susan issued proceedings for the appointment of an independent administrator to administer the estate as she had not received her entitlement. David countered with a successful claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
A judge awarded him £150,000 (around 25% of the estate), with the rest to be split between Ruth and Susan.
David and Ruth asked to be given time to secure finance to buy out Susan’s share of Sybil’s property. They failed to do so but asked the court to allow them to remain living at the property, as they could not afford to rent elsewhere. Ruth also told the court that they had given up their car so they could not even sleep in that.
The judge refused their request, ruling that it would be unfair to prevent Susan from receiving her entitlement from the estate. David and Ruth have appealed the decision and this is due to be heard in April.
How do the courts balance ‘reasonable financial provision’ for dependants with the needs of other beneficiaries? Why is indefinite occupancy of a property not guaranteed even for carers?
Claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 follow a two-stage process. First, the court will assess whether the will failed to make reasonable financial provision for the claimant. If it did, then the court performs a balancing exercise, guided by section 3(1) of the Act, to decide what provision is necessary. This involves weighing up various factors, including the financial resources and needs of the applicant, other applicants and the beneficiaries; the size and nature of the estate; physical or mental disabilities of the applicant or beneficiaries; and any other relevant matters, including the parties’ conduct.
Importantly, the court’s role is to provide for maintenance, not to redistribute capital assets. As seen in the Isaacs case, granting an indefinite residency can ‘freeze’ an estate, preventing other beneficiaries from receiving their inheritance for years. To uphold testamentary freedom, the court will intervene only to the minimum extent required to meet a claimant’s needs. Therefore, rather than awarding a claimant a long-term right to live in a property, one of the potential options available to the court is to award a lump sum. This enables them to find alternative accommodation and allows the estate to be distributed, without preventing the estate from being ‘frozen’.
The hidden personal and financial costs of inheritance disputes, and how family tensions can escalate into multi-year court battles
Inheritance disputes often lead to significant financial costs. The losing party normally has to pay the winner’s costs as well as their own, but the winner does not necessarily recover all of their costs, which can leave parties considerably out of pocket.
These types of disputes have an emotional impact on everyone involved. They are stressful and can lead to irreparable relationships within families.
Practical lessons for advising clients on estate planning, including clear will drafting, communication with heirs, and pre-empting potential disputes before they become legal crises
Ensuring a will is professionally drafted is an effective way to reduce the risk of future disputes. Homemade or DIY wills, even those using online templates, should be avoided as ambiguous phrasing and improperly executed wills are frequent catalysts for litigation. A solicitor should keep detailed notes and records which may be relied upon as evidence of a testator’s true intentions; their mental capacity; whether they knew and approved of their will; and whether they were subject to any undue influence should a challenge to their will arise.
Advisers should encourage clients to have open and honest conversations with family members about their wills. Managing expectations regarding inheritance can prevent the ‘shock’ factor that may trigger legal action. Advisers may also wish to recommend that clients draft a letter of wishes which, although not legally binding, can enable testators to explain the context and reasons behind decisions relating to wills.
Where elderly testators are involved, as a safeguard, advisers may wish to recommend that clients obtain a professional capacity report as evidence that they have capacity to make their will.
In summary, the Isaacs case can serve as a poignant reminder that even a successful day in court can result in a hollow, and temporary, victory. Although David Isaacs won his claim for maintenance, his family relationships are fractured, he says that he is facing homelessness, and he is due back in court in April.
The Court of Appeal’s decision in April 2026 may offer further clarity on how judges balance ‘reasonable provision’ with the needs of other beneficiaries.
David Marcus Isaacs v Michael Anthony Green & Ors [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)
About the author
Alexandra McVean is a solicitor in the Contentious Trust and Probate team at Wilsons Solicitors. She advises on claims under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, will validity, issues with executors, for both charities and private clients.
