Be careful what you promise - Court holds elderly man to promise to leave house to a relative

It may come as a surprise that assurances made to someone that they shall be left property in a Will can be binding, even though you may change your mind. In the recent case of Bradbury v Taylor and Burkinshaw, elderly widower, Bill Bradbury, asked his nephew, Roger Taylor, and his partner Denise Burkinshaw to move into a separate part of his property on the basis that, subject to certain conditions, he would leave the entire house to them.

The couple moved from their home in Sheffield to live with Mr Bradbury in his Cornwall home. Mr Bradbury made a Will in 1998 providing that the Mr Taylor and Ms Burkinshaw could live in the property for seven years following his death but that at the expiry of that period, so long as they had adhered to certain terms, the property would pass to them. However, as the years went by the relationship between the parties deteriorated and the couple’s rights were lessened until in 2009 Mr Bradbury made a Will which left them no rights in the property at all. At the same time he wrote a letter to the couple outlining the provisions of his Will and stating that whilst they were welcome to stay in the property up until his death, they would acquire no rights thereafter.

Mr Bradbury himself took the unusual step of seeking a declaration from the court that the couple would acquire no rights to his property. Sadly, he died the day before the hearing. Mr Bradbury was concerned that Mr Taylor and Ms Burkinshaw would seek to rely on the promise he had made and would argue that they had relied on this assurance to their detriment. These are the requirements of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The court found that Mr Bradbury had made sufficiently clear representations to the couple so as to comprise an assurance. It also concluded that Mr Taylor and Ms Burkinshaw had relied on this assurance to their detriment by moving from Sheffield and by providing care for Mr Bradbury. Also by virtue of work they had done and money they had expended on improvements to the property. The court ordered that the property be transferred to Mr Taylor and Ms Burkinshaw. The Court of Appeal agreed with this finding.

Cases of proprietary estoppel are relatively rare. However, it is worth noting that the law of equity is prepared to step in to prevent someone from unconscionably going back on their promises when others have relied on them to their detriment. If you require any advice in circumstances such as these, then our specialist team of contested probate lawyers, featuring member of Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) Associate Member Kerry Hull, are able to assist. Call now on 01206 217395 to speak to Kerry or one of the team.

Instead the adopted children ignored his wishes and chose to claim their share of the villa under French inheritance law.

The matter which arose was whether, by exercising their rights under French law, the adopted children were entitled, further to Bernard’s English will, to have their liability for the £2 million French inheritance tax now due discharged by the executors out of the English estate.

Judge Nicholas Strauss QC adopted the modern approach to the construction of wills – Mr Matthew’s intention could be clearly read not only by the will but also in his letter to the adopted children. He had wanted Odile to have the villa free of tax.

The Judge therefore declared that it was inconceivable that Mr Matthews, who was fully aware of the risk of his children exercising their inheritance rights under French law, could have intended that, should his wishes be disregarded, that they should also have their tax liability discharged.

The case highlights the difficulties that can arise in cases which concern difference jurisdictions and also the importance of making your intentions clear in your Will. Where property and assets are owned abroad it is essential to take proper advice in order to understand fully which legal system will apply to the construction of your Will, especially where countries exercise regimes of forced heirship.

If you require any advice in circumstances such as these, then our specialist team of contested probate and trust lawyers. Kerry Hull is a member of the Association of Contentious Trust and Probate Specialists (ACTAPS) who will will be able to assist. Call now on 01206 217395 to speak to Kerry or one of the team.