A woman was awarded full ownership of a house after the High Court ruled that the law of intestacy failed to make reasonable provision for her following the death of her former husband.

The decision came in a claim brought under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 after the man died intestate in December 2021, while financial proceedings following the couple’s divorce were still ongoing.

The claimant and the deceased married in 2000 and divorced in 2019 after an 18-year marriage. No final financial settlement had been reached at the time of his death. Under the rules of intestacy, the claimant, as a former spouse, would have received nothing from the estate.

The estate was valued at about £331,000 and included a property in Southend-on-Sea worth £240,000. The house was registered in the claimant’s sole name, but the deceased’s sons argued that he was the beneficial owner and that the property formed part of the estate.

The court first had to decide who beneficially owned the house. After examining how it was funded and how the parties dealt with it over time, the judge found that although the claimant was the sole legal owner, the shared intention of the parties had been that they owned it jointly. The court therefore held that the claimant and the deceased each held a 50% beneficial interest.

That finding meant that half the value of the house fell into the estate. The court then considered whether the intestacy rules made reasonable financial provision for the claimant.

The judge found that they did not. The claimant was 50 years old, had limited earning capacity due to health issues, no pension or savings, and significant debts. She also faced housing insecurity. The court accepted that although the couple had lived apart for many years, their relationship had continued in some form until late 2016 and that the claimant had lost the opportunity to secure a financial settlement because the deceased died before the matrimonial proceedings concluded.

Taking those factors together, the judge concluded that reasonable provision for the claimant’s maintenance required her housing needs to be secured.

The court ordered that the estate’s remaining 50% share of the house be transferred to the claimant, giving her full ownership. No further financial provision was ordered, given the modest size of the estate and the claimant’s continuing ability to work.

Please contact us if you would like more information about the issues raised in this article or any aspect of family law.

Case details

• Case: Hulya Kars v Lewis John Brown & Ors
• Citation: [2026] EWHC 31 (Fam)
• Court: High Court of Justice, Family Division
• Judge: Ms Naomi Davey (Deputy High Court Judge)
• Date: 9 January 2026