An Adult Child may claim Family Provision where they have been left with inadequate provision for their proper maintenance, education or advancement in life. But what happens when the Deceased's own successful Family Provision Proceeding diverted her child's inheritance where that child was ultimately excluded from her will?


The deceased, Brenda Kitteridge, left a sizeable estate behind, comprising of real property valued at approximately $2.2-$2.4 million and $147,867 in cash. Her will provided that 90% of her estate go to her son Steven, and the remaining 10% go to her granddaughter, save for a $10,000 legacy to her sister-in-law. The will included a clause providing that no provision had been made for her other two sons, Robert and Lee, due to their 'refusal of contact' for 'many years'. Lee subsequently commenced family provision proceedings.

The Deceased's Family Provision Proceedings

During the proceedings, a key issue arose concerning the deceased's previous family provision proceedings. After being excluded from both her parent's wills, the deceased had commenced successful family provision claims against both their estates. As a result, much of the deceased's wealth, which was the subject of these proceedings, had not been acquired by her own efforts.

Importantly, the deceased's family provision claim against her mother's estate, part of which had been left to Lee, was in part responsible for souring their relationship. Further, as a result of the deceased's successful claim, Lee's share in his grandmother's estate had been reduced from $120,000 to $46,000. It was also in evidence that the deceased had made multiple representations that Lee would receive the benefit of his grandmother's estate once the deceased passed away.

The Decision

The Court considered that the deceased's family provision proceedings which had the effect of diverting Lee's inheritance from Lee to herself in circumstances where the deceased had led Lee to believe that he would receive the legacy his grandmother had intended to give him on the deceased death, supported Lee's claim.

Further, given that Lee's exclusion from his mother's will and estrangement was primarily a product of the breakdown of the deceased's marriage and her perception that Lee took her ex-husband's side, the 30-year estrangement did not justify Lee's exclusion from her will.

Accordingly, given Lee's modest, although stable, financial circumstances and Steven's stable financial circumstances, the Court held that further provision should be made for Lee in the amount of $460,000.

DISCLAIMER: The information provided above is published for general informational purposes only and is not intended to be nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for legal or other advice.