When Families Are Complicated, So Are Estates

Inheritance disputes in England and Wales are rising sharply, and two converging trends explain why. The first is the sustained increase in residential property values: according to HM Land Registry data, the average UK house price now stands at just under £268,000, compared with around £153,000 twenty years ago, a rise of more than 75 per cent. What was once a modest family home has become, in many cases, a significant asset, and one that can transform even a straightforward-looking estate into something worth contesting. The second is the growing complexity of modern family life, with blended families involving stepchildren, half-siblings and children from multiple relationships now far more common than they were a generation ago. When those two factors combine, the conditions for a disputed inheritance are well established long before anyone has cause to consult a solicitor.

New data obtained from the Ministry of Justice shows that applications for probate caveats, the legal mechanism that temporarily prevents a grant of probate from being issued while concerns about a Will or the handling of an estate are investigated, increased by 12 per cent in a single year, climbing from just over 10,300 to nearly 11,600. That figure represents thousands of grieving families finding themselves in dispute at what is already a painful and disorienting time.

Why blended families are particularly vulnerable

The term blended family covers an enormous range of circumstances, but what these situations share is a complexity that the law of inheritance has always struggled to accommodate cleanly. When someone dies leaving children from a first relationship and a surviving spouse or partner from a second, the competing interests of those two groups can pull in directly opposite directions. A Will that leaves everything to the surviving spouse may feel entirely reasonable to the person who made it, but to children from an earlier relationship it can mean waiting  for any inheritance, if it is received at all, particularly if that spouse later remarries, has further children, or simply lives for many years. By the time the surviving spouse’s estate is eventually distributed, the share that reaches the children of the first relationship may be considerably diminished, or may not materialise at all.

The position of stepchildren is particularly precarious. Unlike biological or legally adopted children, stepchildren have no automatic entitlement under the rules of intestacy, the framework that governs how an estate is distributed when someone dies without a valid Will. If a stepparent dies intestate, a stepchild who has been raised within the family and treated in every practical sense as a child of the household may receive nothing at all. Even where a Will exists, stepchildren are frequently treated differently from biological children, whether deliberately or simply through oversight, particularly where the Will was drafted before the blended family came into existence and was never updated to reflect the new reality.

Half-siblings also introduce a further layer of complexity. Where children share one parent but not the other, the question of how an estate should be divided between them is rarely straightforward, particularly where the assets on each side of the family are unequal in value. A child who has already benefited from one parent’s estate may find themselves in conflict with a half-sibling who has not, and what feels equitable from one perspective can feel deeply unfair from another.

When a Will no longer reflects reality

Many of the disputes that end up before the courts have their roots not in bad faith but in Wills that were simply never kept up to date. A Will drafted before a second marriage, before the birth of further children, or before a significant change in the value of an estate can produce outcomes that bear no resemblance to what the person who made it would have wanted. The law in England and Wales does provide some limited automatic adjustment in these circumstances, most notably the rule that marriage revokes an existing Will entirely, leaving the deceased intestate unless a new Will is made. But that rule cuts both ways: it protects a new spouse from being excluded, but it can simultaneously disinherit children from an earlier relationship who were named in a Will that is no longer valid.

Where a Will does exist but appears to treat certain family members unfairly, those who feel disadvantaged have two broad avenues available to them. The first is to challenge the validity of the Will itself. The second is to accept the Will as valid but seek additional provision from the estate regardless of what it says.

Challenging the validity of a Will

There are several grounds on which a Will can be challenged, ranging from defects in the way it was executed to allegations of fraud or claims that the document does not accurately reflect the testator’s instructions. In disputes arising from complex family structures, however, two arguments arise most frequently: that the person who made the Will lacked the ‘testamentary capacity’ to do so, or that they were subject to ‘undue influence’ at the time. These are distinct legal concepts, and the distinction matters considerably in practice.

Testamentary capacity requires that the person making the Will understood its nature and effect, had a clear sense of the extent of the estate they were dealing with, was aware of the people who might reasonably expect to benefit, and was not suffering from any disorder of the mind that poisoned their affections or distorted their judgment. The legal test derives from the case of Banks v Goodfellow, decided in 1870, and remains the applicable standard today. Capacity challenges most often arise where a parent has made or altered a Will later in life, perhaps following remarriage or in the context of declining health, in a way that favours one branch of the family over another. Where dementia or another cognitive condition is present, the question of whether the testator genuinely understood what they were doing and who they were potentially excluding becomes central to the dispute. Medical records, contemporaneous assessments and witness evidence about the testator’s condition at the relevant time frequently become critical, and these cases can be both technically complex and emotionally gruelling for everyone involved.

Undue influence and the limits of proof

Undue influence operates differently. It requires proof that the testator’s free will was so completely overborne by another person that the resulting Will reflects that person’s wishes rather than their own. This might arise where a new spouse or partner is alleged to have pressured a vulnerable testator into altering their Will to exclude children from a previous relationship, or where a dominant family member is said to have exploited a position of care or trust to shape the distribution of an estate to their own advantage. Unlike undue influence in contract law, it cannot simply be presumed from the existence of a close relationship; it must be proved on the facts. That is a high bar, and one that makes these claims genuinely difficult to succeed on, even where the suspicion of improper pressure is entirely understandable.

Seeking provision under the 1975 Act

Where a Will is accepted as valid but someone feels they have been inadequately provided for, a separate route exists through the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This legislation allows certain categories of person to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from an estate, regardless of what the Will says or what the rules of intestacy would otherwise produce. The categories of eligible applicant include spouses and civil partners, former spouses who have not remarried, cohabitants who lived with the deceased for at least two years immediately before death, children of the deceased, and anyone who was treated by the deceased as a child of the family or was financially dependent on them.

That last category is particularly significant where families are structured across multiple relationships. A stepchild who was financially dependent on a stepparent may have a viable claim under the 1975 Act even where they were entirely excluded from the Will and have no automatic entitlement under intestacy. The court will consider a broad range of factors in deciding whether to make an award and in what amount, including the size and nature of the estate, the financial needs and resources of the applicant and all other beneficiaries, any obligations the deceased had towards the applicant, and the manner in which the applicant was treated during the deceased’s lifetime. As estates have grown in value, the potential scale of awards under the 1975 Act has grown with them, which has made this avenue increasingly attractive to those who feel they have been left with little or nothing.

The mechanics of a dispute and why they matter

The practical starting point for many inheritance disputes is the probate caveat. At a cost of just £3, any interested person can lodge a caveat that immediately prevents a grant of probate from being issued, effectively freezing the administration of the estate for up to six months. The low cost and minimal procedural barriers mean that caveats are sometimes used as a tactical device to buy time or apply pressure, even where the underlying claim is not yet fully formed. For executors, the consequences can be significant: assets cannot be distributed, property cannot be sold, and the costs of the estate continue to accumulate while the dispute is resolved.

If the person who lodges the caveat wishes to maintain the block beyond six months, they must enter a formal appearance, at which point the matter moves into full litigation. Legal costs on both sides can escalate quickly, and it is not unusual for the expense of contesting an estate to consume a substantial portion of the inheritance that prompted the dispute in the first place. That reality alone is one of the strongest arguments for addressing potential vulnerabilities in an estate plan before a dispute ever arises.

What you can do to protect your estate and your family

The most effective way to reduce the risk of conflict is a carefully drafted, regularly reviewed Will that genuinely reflects your current family circumstances. Where family structures are complex, clarity of intention is everything. A letter of wishes prepared alongside the Will can provide executors and beneficiaries with an explanation of the reasoning behind the decisions made, which will not prevent a legal challenge but can significantly reduce the likelihood of one arising in the first place.

Where there is any concern about capacity at the time a Will is being made or revised, a contemporaneous medical assessment should be considered. Retaining that assessment alongside the Will provides a clear evidential record that can be invaluable if the position is ever called into question. Solicitors experienced in estate planning can also ensure that the process of taking instructions and executing a Will is properly documented, which provides an additional layer of protection against a future capacity or undue influence challenge.

Wills should be reviewed regularly, and particularly following significant life events: remarriage, the birth or arrival of further children, a change in the financial position of any family member who features in the document, or the breakdown of a relationship that was previously reflected in its terms. A Will that was entirely appropriate when it was made can produce outcomes that feel profoundly unjust if it is left unchanged as the family around it continues to evolve.

If you would like to review your Will, take advice on estate planning within a blended or complex family structure, or discuss a concern about an existing estate, our private client team would be glad to help.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.