Farmer Who Worked For Free Gains Share of Will

Farmer Who Worked For Free Gains Share of Will


When promises are made but not kept, the law often provides no redress for the disappointed person, as a recent case involving a couple who looked after a friend demonstrates.

The couple looked after their friend when he became unable to care for himself, and they helped him deal with his affairs. He offered them the use of two properties he owned, which they accepted. Over the ensuing years, they decorated and maintained the properties and even carried out improvements to one of them. The man told the couple that he intended to leave the properties to them when he died and also made other people aware that this was his intention. He signed a document to that effect, but it was not a valid will and he died legally intestate. At the point at which the man died, the properties were worth £280,000.

The couple applied for the title to the properties to be transferred to them. When their request was refused, they went to court claiming that the man’s promise had created a ‘constructive trust’ for them and that they were entitled to the properties because they had acted to their own detriment on account of the man’s promise. Where a person acts to their own detriment on the basis of a promise made by another person, it may be possible to mount a successful claim.

However, the court rejected the couple’s claim. There was, in the mind of the judge, an insufficient link between the promise and the couple’s detriment to allow them to benefit, except by way of compensation for their expenditure and a small amount for their disappointment. Accordingly, an award of £20,000 was made. The couple appealed, claiming that there was, in effect, a bargain between them and the man, which the court should uphold.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the man’s offer of property for use was not accompanied by a requirement that the couple carry out the acts for which they claimed compensation, so there was no ‘bargain’. Nor was there any ground for the assumption that receipt of properties worth £280,000 was in proportion to the detriment that the couple had suffered. The claim was therefore rejected.

The couple were no doubt disappointed, but relying on stated intention in such cases is a very risky strategy. The sensible thing to do is to make sure that the correct paperwork is put in place to give effect to the owner’s intention. Creating the documentation needed to transfer property or writing a will is both quick and inexpensive.

As a comparison to the failed attempt described above, a farmer who helped a relative run his farm for more than 20 years has been awarded ownership of the farm. David Thorner was the son of Peter Thorner’s cousin. He helped Peter to run his 400 acre farm when Peter began to suffer from ill health. What started as a temporary measure became a lifetime of commitment, as David spent the next 25 years working on the farm without taking a holiday and sometimes working up to 18 hours a day. He was never paid for his work, only receiving a modest allowance from his parents.

The two men had an understanding that on Peter’s death, David would inherit the farm. However, Peter destroyed the will he had made in 1997, which left the farm and most of his estate to David, and never made another. This appears to have occurred because Peter had a falling-out with one of the other beneficiaries under the will. On Peter’s death in 2005, no will could be found, so the laws of intestacy applied. In such cases, the estate passes to the nearest relatives, who in this case were Peter’s nieces.

David relied on the principle of estoppel – in essence that it would be unfair to divide the estate according to the intestacy laws. He argued that the result of Peter’s not having made a new Will, led to the unfair result that David would not inherit the farm as per their agreement. The claim was defended on the basis that there was no promise as such that David should inherit the farm and thus, if he had any claim at all for having provision made for him out of the estate, it would be a much lesser amount. The court heard a great deal of evidence that Peter had an ‘indirect’ way of saying things – for example, saying, “What are you doing tomorrow?”, when what he meant was “Can you help me tomorrow?” This was claimed to account for the lack of direct evidence for Peter’s promise.

David applied to the court for provision out of the estate and was successful in his claim. The Court awarded the ‘non-agricultural’ assets of approximately £1m to the nieces and the farm to David.

Peter’s failure to leave a valid will meant that the family faced two years of uncertainty and legal wrangling over his estate. All of that expenditure was avoidable. If you have a relative who has assets and is intestate, they may not realise the benefits of making or the consequences of not making a will. The laws of intestacy are often not fair, and in this case, had David not made a challenge, the whole of the estate would have passed to family members, who had had very little to do with the deceased during his lifetime.

The information contained in this newsletter was prepared in May 2008 and is intended for general guidance only. It provides information in a concise form and is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice.