‘This phenomenon, known as ‘sideways inheritance’, occurs when assets intended for a person’s children or grandchildren are instead diverted to a new spouse or a different family line, often unintentionally,’ explains Claire Simon, Partner in the dispute resolution team with QualitySolicitors Parkinson Wright. ‘In an era of complex blended families and rising property values, these disputes are becoming a significant source of litigation.’
‘Understanding the mechanics of this risk and the crucial role of a specialist solicitor is the first step toward protecting a family legacy,’ Claire continues.
The mechanics of sideways inheritance
Sideways inheritance typically arises in the context of a second marriage or civil partnership. In a common scenario, a parent remarries and creates a ‘mirror will’ with their new partner. These documents are designed to be identical, usually leaving everything to the surviving spouse and then, upon the second death, to the children of both parties.
However, mirror wills offer no permanent legal protection for the children of the first marriage. Once the first parent passes away, the surviving spouse becomes the absolute owner of the combined assets. Legally, they are then free to change their will at any time. They might choose to leave the entire estate to their own biological children from a previous relationship, or perhaps to a new partner they meet later in life.
The risk is not always a result of malice; it is frequently a consequence of the law itself. Under the Wills Act 1837, a new marriage automatically revokes any existing will unless that document was specifically made in contemplation of that particular marriage. If a parent remarries and fails to create a new will immediately, they are deemed to have died intestate.
In such cases, the strict intestacy rules prioritise the new spouse, often leaving some children with little to nothing. This movement of wealth means that a home, which may have been in a family for generations, can pass entirely into the hands of a step-family with no legal obligation to return it to the original heirs.
Legal recourse and the Inheritance Act 1975
While the UK generally upholds the principle of testamentary freedom – the right to leave your money to whomever you choose – this right is not absolute. When a child or dependant finds themselves disinherited due to a sideways shift in assets, the primary tool for legal redress is the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. This allows certain categories of people to claim that a will, or the intestacy rules, failed to make reasonable financial provision for them.
Bringing a claim under this Act is not a straightforward process of proving a moral right to the money. The courts look at a range of factors, including the financial needs and resources of the claimant, the size of the estate, and the obligations the deceased had toward other beneficiaries.
For adult children who are not financially dependent, these claims can be particularly challenging as the court must be convinced that maintenance is required. This is a high evidentiary burden to prove and one that is difficult to achieve without the help of a specialist solicitor.
Challenging the validity of a will
In some sideways inheritance cases, the dispute centres on whether the parent’s final will was even valid. If a parent was elderly or unwell when they made a new will benefitting a step-family, there may be grounds to challenge it based on a lack of testamentary capacity. This requires proving the parent did not fully understand the value of their estate or the claims of the people they were excluding.
Other grounds for invalidating a will include ‘undue influence’ or ‘lack of knowledge and approval’. Undue influence is notoriously difficult to prove, as it requires evidence that the parent was coerced into making a will against their own free will.
A solicitor can use tools like a Larke v Nugus request to obtain the drafting solicitor’s files, which is particularly helpful in capacity and influence disputes.
The power of proprietary estoppel
Another possible route for a disinherited child is a claim for ‘proprietary estoppel’. This applies if a parent made a clear promise – such as ‘this house will be yours one day’ – and the child relied on that promise to their significant detriment. For example, a child might have worked on the family farm for low wages or provided unpaid care based on the understanding they would inherit the house.
Proving proprietary estoppel is complex because it relies on oral promises and historical conduct. A solicitor’s role is to reconstruct years of family history into a legally coherent narrative supported by witness statements and financial records. If successful, the court can ‘estop’ the estate from going to the new family and instead award the promised assets to the child.
Immediate practical steps and the caveat
Speed is of the essence in a sideways inheritance dispute. For claims under the Inheritance Act 1975, there is a six-month time limit from the date the Grant of Probate is issued. Trying to extend this window can be challenging, making early consultation with a solicitor a matter of survival for their claim.
If a will is suspected of being invalid, a solicitor can enter a ‘caveat’ at the Probate Registry. This prevents the executors from obtaining a Grant of Probate for six months, effectively freezing the estate. This ‘breathing room’ allows a legal team to investigate the circumstances of the will without the risk of the assets being distributed or sold by the new family.
How a solicitor can help
Inheritance disputes are rarely just about money; they are deeply personal conflicts fuelled by grief and perceived injustice. When a dispute begins, a solicitor serves as an objective buffer managing all correspondence and negotiation.
Our solicitors will determine the grounds upon which a claim should be made, help gather critical evidence regarding the deceased's true intentions, and handle the intricate task of valuing assets and tracing funds that may have been moved.
They can steer the parties toward alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation which are often faster, cheaper, and more private than a full court trial, and ensure that strict statutory deadlines are met, protecting a disinherited child’s right to seek justice.
For further information, please contact Claire Simon or a member of the dispute resolution team on 01905 721600 or via email: worcester@parkinsonwright.co.uk
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. Please note that the law may have changed since this article was published.