Re Christie, deed
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1979 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Family Provision - Son - “Reasonable financial provision” - Parent intending to bequeath house to son - Intention frustrated - Son not in financial need applying for “maintenance” from estate - Parent's half interest in daughter's house previously given to daughter - Whether reasonable financial provision made for son -
The deceased had inherited from her husband the freehold of a house in Essex and a half share in a house in London owned jointly with her son-in-law. In 1963 she made a will which, in the events that occurred, devised her whole interest in the Essex house to her son and her whole interest in the London house to her daughter, the residue to be divided between them. In 1971 she gave her interest in the London house to her daughter. In November 1976 she sold the Essex house and bought a smaller house in the same town expressing her intention of altering her will to devise the new house to her son, but died a month after the move without having made a new will. The deceased's residuary estate of about £13,500 consisted of the new house and about £4,500 in cash, insurance policies and personal effects. The son applied for provision from the estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
On the question whether, within the meaning of section 1 (2) (b) of the ActF1, the deceased had made such financial provision for the son as would be reasonable in all the circumstances for his maintenance: —
Held, granting the application, that “maintenance” in section 1 (2) (b)of the Act referred to the applicant s way of life and wellbeing, his health, financial security and allied matters such the wellbeing, health and financial security of his immediate family for whom he was responsible: that, accordingly, a dependant did not have to prove that he was destitute or in financial difficulty in order to apply under section 1 (1) and, since the disposition of the deceased's estate did not make such financial provision for the son as was reasonable for him to receive for his maintenance the house should be transferred to him (post, pp. 110E–111A).
No cases are referred to in the judgment and none were cited in argument.
ORIGINATING SUMMONS
By an originating summons dated August 25, 1977, the plaintiff, Graham John Christie, applied for financial provision to be made for him out of the estate of his mother, Grace Annie Victoria Christie, under section 1 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. The defendant, Ethel Violet Keeble, was the plaintiff's sister.
The facts are stated in the judgment.
David Gerrey for the son.
John Trenhaile for the daughter.
MR. VIVIAN PRICE Q.C. Mrs. Grace Christie of 9, Edison Road, Holland-on-Sea, Essex, formerly of 76, Median Road, Clapton, London, E.5 died on December 19, 1976. Her will dated September 23, 1963, was proved on March 21, 1977, in the Ipswich District Probate Registry by her two children, Graham John Christie, and Ethel Violet Keeble, who were granted letters of administration of the deceased's estate and who had been appointed in her will as executors and trustees of the will.
At the time when she made her will in 1963, Mrs. Christie, the deceased, was living with her daughter and her daughter's family at 76, Median Road together with her husband, Mr. Charlie Christie. That house at that time was owned jointly by Mr. Charlie Christie and the daughter's husband, and, indeed, from that time until 1968 or 1969 the deceased and her husband continued to live with their daughter and her family at the house in Median Road, Clapton. The son also lived in the same house at Median Road up until his marriage in 1966.
After 1968 or 1969 Mrs. Grace Christie had moved with her husband to 26, Ingarfield Road, Holland-on-Sea, Essex, which had been left to her husband in 1963 by two friends of the family, Mrs. Florence Ball and Miss Edith Hoare.
Upon the death of Mr. Charlie Christie in 1971 the deceased inherited 26, Ingarfield Road and her husband's half share of 76, Median Road, Clapton. The year 1971 is of significance since in that same year in which she inherited her husband's half share in 76, Median Road, Clapton, the deceased executed a deed of gift of that half share to her daughter. The significance can be seen from a consideration of her will of September 23, 1963. Under clause 3 of her will she had given all her estate and effects whatsoever and wheresoever to her husband, Charlie Christie, absolutely but, since he had died in 1971, then by clause 4 of the will. clauses 5, 6 and 7 took effect. Under clause 6 (b) the deceased devised and bequeathed all her estate and interest at the time of her death in the freehold dwelling house, with the outbuildings and land belonging to or held with the same and known as 76, Median Road, Clapton, London, E.5 to her daughter absolutely. Thus in 1971 by her deed of gift the deceased had carried into effect that part of her intention, as expressed in her will, that related to the transfer of her interest in 76, Median Road to her daughter.
The other portions of the will that came into effect in 1971 upon Mr. Charlie Christie's death, were: first of all, clause 5 whereby, she states:
“I appoint my son, Graham Christie (if and when he shall attain the age of 21 years) and my daughter, Ethel Keeble (hereinafter called ‘my trustees’) to be the executors and trustees of this my will.”
Clause 6:
“I devise and bequeath: — (a) all my estate and interest at the time of my death in the freehold dwelling house with the outbuildings and land belonging to or held with the same and known as 26, Ingarfield Road, Holland-on-Sea, in the county of Essex, to my said son, Graham Christie...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Juliet Antonia Margaret Miles v Pamela Lesley Shearer (as executrix and beneficiary of the estate of Anthony Presley Shearer)
...Coventry [1980] Ch 461. In that case both Oliver J at first instance and Goff LJ in the Court of Appeal disapproved of the decision in In re Christie [1979] Ch 168, in which the judge had treated maintenance as being equivalent to providing for the well-being or benefit of the applicant. ......
-
Ilott v Mitson (1st Respondent) Michael Peter Lane (personal representatives of Melita Jackson Deceased) (2nd Respondent) The Blue Cross Animal Welfare Charity (3rd Respondent) Royal Society for The Protection of Birds (4th Respondent) Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (5th Respondent)
...In that case both Oliver J at first instance and Goff LJ in the Court of Appeal disapproved of the decision in Re Christie (deceased) [1979] 1 All ER 546, [1979] Ch 168, in which the judge had treated maintenance as being equivalent to providing for the well-being or benefit of the applica......
-
Re Jackson (Deceased); Ilott v Mitson and Others
...In that case both Oliver J at first instance and Goff LJ in the Court of Appeal disapproved of the decision in In re Christie (deceased)… [1979] Ch 168, in which the judge had treated maintenance as being equivalent to providing for the well-being or benefit of the applicant. The word 'mai......
-
Lynn Lewis (as Executrix of the Estate of Audrey Blackwell, deceased) v Thomas Stanley Warner
...that case both Oliver J at first instance and Goff LJ in the Court of Appeal disapproved of the decision in In re Christie (deceased) … [1979] Ch 168, in which the judge had treated maintenance as being equivalent to providing for the well-being or benefit of the applicant. The word ‘mainte......