The High Court has ruled that a widow’s “strained” relationship with the executors or trustees of her late husband’s will has no bearing on the reasonableness of the financial provisions made for her within said will, despite the very real prospect of her income from the estate being terminated.
Christopher Ramus, the testator, passed away in 2020, midway through selling his matrimonial home in preparation for divorce from his wife, Elizabeth Ramus.
His will gave most of the estate to a trust worth c. £1 million, in which Elizabeth held a life interest. However, the trustees had the power to terminate the life interest if she cohabited with another or if the trustees decided she no longer needed it. Subject to the life interest, the fund was held on flexible discretionary trusts for the children of the testator, remoter issue, and for Elizabeth – unless the children decided to exclude her.
One of the children, and a trustee, was Claire Holt, daughter of Christopher and Elizabeth. The two had a “strained” relationship, which contributed to Elizabeth’s decision to divorce Christopher.
Borne out of concern that her income under the trust could therefore be terminated, Elizabeth commenced proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as she did not believe the will made reasonable financial provision for her, suggesting that the trustees should be removed.
“Reasonable financial provision from the estate of the deceased does not become unreasonable financial provision because of the identity of the trustees,” said Upper Tribunal Judge Mark West in dismissing Elizabeth’s claim.
The Judge also added that Claire would not have the sole power to terminate the life interest – unanimous agreement was needed.
What’s more, he said there was no jurisdiction of the Court given the available evidence to remove any trustees, adding that such a power would “undermine the law concerning the removal of trustees under other statutory provisions in other areas”. He concluded:
“Mrs Ramus’s real complaint is the identity of the trustees. It is a wholly novel argument that reasonable financial provisionhad not been made, not because of the terms of the will itself, but because a claimant objects to the identity of a trustee or trustees based on a personality clash with one of them.
Such a clash would not of itself justify the removal of an executor or trustee under a removal application and it is difficult to see how it could support a successful claim that the will has failed to make reasonable financial provision.”
Join nearly 5,000 other practitioners – sign up to our newsletter
