Latest news with #JoanBlass
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Predatory marriages could be banned after pensioners ‘groomed' for inheritance payouts
Ministers are considering reforming marriage rules to stop elderly people from being preyed on and their families disinherited. So-called 'predatory marriages' – which lawyers claim are on the rise – see the elderly and vulnerable groomed into marriages they may not properly understand. Current rules mean that pre-existing wills are invalidated when a person marries, meaning that spouses, who can inherit without paying any death duties, stand to get everything under intestacy laws. But a major report from the Law Commission, published last week, recommended that wills should no longer be discarded when a person marries. In a letter to Sarah Sackman, a justice minister, and Fabian Hamilton, a Labour MP, raised the case of Joan Blass, a 91-year-old woman suffering from dementia who married a younger man in a 'secret' wedding. She was widowed in 2008 but towards the end of 2011 struck up a conversation with the man, who was standing at the end of her garden. Within a month, he had moved into her spare bedroom. The marriage – made without the knowledge of Ms Blass's family – meant that when she died in 2016, she was buried in an unmarked grave, against her wishes, and 'stripped of all her assets and money'. Her husband claimed she did have the capacity to marry him and that it was a 'loving and caring' relationship, the i newspaper reported. Mr Hamilton wrote on X: 'The Wills Act hasn't been updated since 1837. Marriage should never revoke a previous will. 'The Law Commission has put forward decisive recommendations. I have written to the justice minister calling on the Government to act on them.' The Labour MP put forward a Private Members' Bill in 2018 proposing a change in the law, which was supported by MPs including Rachel Reeves and Sir Ed Davey. Mr Hamilton said he had been contacted by several families who had experienced 'predatory marriages', demonstrating the scale of the issue. Daniel Edwards, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, said many people were unaware of the rule, and that it 'can seem a little hard to justify, given changes in society since the rule came about.' Mr Edwards added: 'It is also one that can be open to abuse; in cases of 'predatory marriage' a will – that perhaps leaves everything to the testator's children – would in all likelihood be revoked by a marriage. 'While Law Commission reports can sometimes take years to be considered and debated in Parliament, the fact we have already seen the Government's response suggests there is motivation and intention to bring forward changes in the not-too-distant future.' Ms Sackman said in response to the recommendations: 'Marriage should no longer automatically revoke a will – this recommendation is designed to address the problem of 'predatory marriages' where vulnerable people are befriended, and the effect of the marriage is to disinherit families and others from any will they have made.' The Law Commission began looking into wills in 2016, before pausing the research in 2019 to focus on marriages at the Government's request. It published the results of two public consultations and draft legislation earlier this month. Other recommendations from the review included allowing children to make wills, making electronic wills valid and the recognition of more informal wills. The commission also proposed abolishing rules which stop second spouses, stepchildren and divorced partners from challenging mutual wills under the Inheritance Act 1975. Ms Sackman added: 'The reforms proposed by the Law Commission are significant and wide-ranging. They deserve detailed consideration. 'The Government recognises that the current law is outdated, and we must embrace change, but the guiding principle in doing so will be to ensure that reform does not compromise existing freedoms or protecting the elderly and vulnerable in society from undue influence.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Predatory marriages could be banned after pensioners ‘groomed' for inheritance payouts
Ministers are considering reforming marriage rules to stop elderly people from being preyed on and their families disinherited. So-called 'predatory marriages' – which lawyers claim are on the rise – see the elderly and vulnerable groomed into marriages they may not properly understand. Current rules mean that pre-existing wills are invalidated when a person marries, meaning that spouses, who can inherit without paying any death duties, stand to get everything under intestacy laws. But a major report from the Law Commission, published last week, recommended that wills should no longer be discarded when a person marries. In a letter to Sarah Sackman, a justice minister, and Fabian Hamilton, a Labour MP, raised the case of Joan Blass, a 91-year-old woman suffering from dementia who married a younger man in a 'secret' wedding. She was widowed in 2008 but towards the end of 2011 struck up a conversation with the man, who was standing at the end of her garden. Within a month, he had moved into her spare bedroom. The marriage – made without the knowledge of Ms Blass's family – meant that when she died in 2016, she was buried in an unmarked grave, against her wishes, and 'stripped of all her assets and money'. Her husband claimed she did have the capacity to marry him and that it was a 'loving and caring' relationship, the i newspaper reported. Mr Hamilton wrote on X: 'The Wills Act hasn't been updated since 1837. Marriage should never revoke a previous will. 'The Law Commission has put forward decisive recommendations. I have written to the justice minister calling on the Government to act on them.' Current rules 'hard to justify' The Labour MP put forward a Private Members' Bill in 2018 proposing a change in the law, which was supported by MPs including Rachel Reeves and Sir Ed Davey. Mr Hamilton said he had been contacted by several families who had experienced 'predatory marriages', demonstrating the scale of the issue. Daniel Edwards, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, said many people were unaware of the rule, and that it 'can seem a little hard to justify, given changes in society since the rule came about.' Mr Edwards added: 'It is also one that can be open to abuse; in cases of 'predatory marriage' a will – that perhaps leaves everything to the testator's children – would in all likelihood be revoked by a marriage. 'While Law Commission reports can sometimes take years to be considered and debated in Parliament, the fact we have already seen the Government's response suggests there is motivation and intention to bring forward changes in the not-too-distant future.' Government 'recognises current law is outdated' Ms Sackman said in response to the recommendations: 'Marriage should no longer automatically revoke a will – this recommendation is designed to address the problem of 'predatory marriages' where vulnerable people are befriended, and the effect of the marriage is to disinherit families and others from any will they have made.' The Law Commission began looking into wills in 2016, before pausing the research in 2019 to focus on marriages at the Government's request. It published the results of two public consultations and draft legislation earlier this month. Other recommendations from the review included allowing children to make wills, making electronic wills valid and the recognition of more informal wills. The commission also proposed abolishing rules which stop second spouses, stepchildren and divorced partners from challenging mutual wills under the Inheritance Act 1975. Ms Sackman added: 'The reforms proposed by the Law Commission are significant and wide-ranging. They deserve detailed consideration. 'The Government recognises that the current law is outdated, and we must embrace change, but the guiding principle in doing so will be to ensure that reform does not compromise existing freedoms or protecting the elderly and vulnerable in society from undue influence.'
