Anne Lettice v Linda Lettice & Ors

Anne Lettice v Linda Lettice & Ors

Anne Lettice failed to establish that the will of Margaret Lettice did not make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance. She was not maintained by the deceased, her inheritance was sufficient to meet her reasonable needs, and there was no greater obligation owed to her than to other beneficiaries. Her evidence was unreliable and her claim exaggerated.

Parties
Claimant: Anne Lettice; First Defendant (executor and Beneficiary): Linda Lettice; Second Defendant (beneficiary): Frederick Michael Lettice; Third Defendant (beneficiary): Peter Lettice; Fourth Defendant (beneficiary): Sylvia Ricks; Fifth Defendant (beneficiary): Brian Lettice; Sixth Defendant (beneficiary): Samuel Lettice; Seventh Defendant (beneficiary): Emilie Lettice; Eighth Defendant (beneficiary): Janine Higgins; Ninth Defendant (beneficiary): Fleur Louise Nicholls; Tenth Defendant (beneficiary): Vandra Lee Wyatt; Eleventh Defendant (beneficiary): Nina Ricks
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Inheritance Claim (part 8 Proceedings) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Reasonable Financial Provision, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Maintenance Standard for Adult Children, Testamentary Freedom, Obligations of Deceased Towards Adult Children
Succession Law Probate Trusts Reasonable Financial Provision Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Maintenance Standard for Adult Children Testamentary Freedom Obligations of Deceased Towards Adult Children

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anne Lettice

Claimant

Linda Lettice

First Defendant (executor and Beneficiary)

Frederick Michael Lettice

Second Defendant (beneficiary)

Peter Lettice

Third Defendant (beneficiary)

Sylvia Ricks

Fourth Defendant (beneficiary)

Brian Lettice

Fifth Defendant (beneficiary)

Samuel Lettice

Sixth Defendant (beneficiary)

Emilie Lettice

Seventh Defendant (beneficiary)

Janine Higgins

Eighth Defendant (beneficiary)

Fleur Louise Nicholls

Ninth Defendant (beneficiary)

Vandra Lee Wyatt

Tenth Defendant (beneficiary)

Nina Ricks

Eleventh Defendant (beneficiary)

Procedural Posture

Inheritance Claim (part 8 Proceedings) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will of Margaret Lettice failed to make reasonable financial provision for Anne Lettice under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether Anne Lettice was being maintained by the deceased or had a maintenance need exceeding her inheritance
  3. 3 Whether the court should make an order for further provision from the estate

Ratio Decidendi

Anne Lettice failed to establish that the will of Margaret Lettice did not make reasonable financial provision for her maintenance. She was not maintained by the deceased, her inheritance was sufficient to meet her reasonable needs, and there was no greater obligation owed to her than to other beneficiaries. Her evidence was unreliable and her claim exaggerated.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim for further financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is dismissed.