Inheritance Disputes And The Disappointed Farmer

You have toiled on the land with your father and farmed in partnership for over 20 years having been promised that the farm will be yours one day, but then you find out upon your father's death that you have been cut out of his will. That was the case for Michael Spencer, who farmed with his father John in Lincolnshire. John erroneously thought Michael was going to die following a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. Thinking that Michael's children would not be interested in the farm and that it would be sold, he chose therefore not to leave the farm to Michael in his will.

In a different case in Scotland, Louise Davies, who claimed that she shared a close relationship with William Cassie, and that she had been promised on several occasions that part of his estate would be passed to her on his death, found instead that he had left no will.

In each of these cases there was a claim that the farm, or part of the estate, had been promised to them. But each of these cases had very different outcomes.

English vs Scottish law

English

In Michael's case he relied on his father's assurances and that it would be unconscionable to allow his father to go back on his word. He therefore sought a remedy on the basis of the English doctrine of proprietary estoppel, which is concerned with promises made in relation to property or land. In short, it is an equitable principle that prevents a landowner from enforcing their strict legal rights when they have made a promise or statement to someone that part or all of the property would be transferred to them in the future and that assurance has been relied upon to the claimant's detriment.

Scottish

In Scotland however there is no such equitable remedy, and the claimant has to rely on the law of contract or more likely in these sorts of circumstances, the law of unilateral obligation (i.e. a promise). Historically, promises could only be proved by writ or oath i.e. a writing by the promisor or their evidence under oath. This made pursuing such a case successfully extremely difficult. The Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 changed that by allowing for an unwritten contract to be enforced if a person had acted or refrained from acting in reliance of the promise.

England – Michael's case

So what were the circumstances in Michael's case?

Like many in a farming family, Michael left school at 15 and devoted his life to working on the family farm. He worked extremely hard and always subject to his father's will. His relationship with his father was said to be somewhat tempestuous and they argued weekly. Michael claimed that his father had repeatedly said “it will all be yours one day” and “you are going to inherit it so I don't know what your problem is with the amount of money you are earning”. John had promised him that he would inherit the farm and that was reflected in a will made in 2003. However shortly before he died in 2018 John made a new will. By this time Michael had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and John was convinced that Michael would shortly die. Fearing the land would be sold as Michael's children had no interest in the land, he excluded Michael from the inheritance of the farm.

In order to grant the equitable remedy, the judge had to be satisfied that:

1. Assurances that Michael would inherit the farm had been made. The judge accepted Michael's evidence on this point.
2. That Michael had relied on these assurances. This was also accepted.
3. That Michael had suffered detriment because of his reliance on the assurances. Again, the judge was satisfied that this had been the case.

He also had to consider unconscionability. This he said permeates the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Was it or was it not unconscionable in all the circumstances for the assurances to be rejected on John's death by his will? The judge found that while John appeared to think Michael was dying and appeared concerned that Michael's sons might not take on the farm after their father's death, these were not good reasons to deprive Michael of his expectation and in any event, John was wrong about Michael's life expectancy.

The court therefore found in favour of Michael, and the farm was transferred to Michael.

Scotland – Louise's case

How did Louise Davies fare in her claim in Scotland?

This case was decided on the basis of the relevancy of the written pleadings – i.e. had a legal case been made out such that, if proved, it would be successful. No evidence was led. What had been pled was that Louise had met Mr Cassie, a farmer, in 2010 and that they enjoyed a close relationship. Mr Cassie seems to have owned land in Caithness at Skares Farm as well as Portstown Farm, Inverurie. Mr Cassie died in 2023 without leaving a will. His estate was valued slightly in excess of £2,600,000.

Louise's pleadings in the case stated that on many occasions Mr Cassie had advised her (and others) that most of his estate would be passed to her. She pled that all of the deceased's heritable and moveable estate was promised to her. She also said that the deceased had met a solicitor and in the presence of a friend had told the solicitor that he wished Louise to inherit some of his estate including land in Caithness and at Skares farm. He had told another friend that Louise would inherit Skares Farm and the remainder of his estate and on another occasion that his money and a vehicle on the farm would be included in the inheritance. He had told Louise's partner that Skares farm would belong to her “at the end of the day” and that she would “keep the farms”. Finally, it was stated that the deceased had told someone who assisted with farm work that Louise would inherit livestock at Skare Farm and that she would also inherit his estate.

Unfortunately for Louise the judge found that the requirement for clear and unambiguous words to constitute a promissory obligation had not been met. Any promissory obligation is intention based and it was the courts task to consider whether Louise's averments objectively assessed disclose an intention on the part of Mr Cassie to incur a legally binding engagement. In this case they did not.

Of course, if a promise had been made out, Louise would then have had to meet the test of Section 1(3) of the Requirements of Writing (Scotland) Act 1995 and prove that she had acted or refrained from acting in reliance of the promise.

These cases demonstrate a divergence between the laws in this area north and south of the border with the position in England arguably more favourable to the disappointed farmer.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.