In this, the second of three articles, the lawyers examine what high net worth individuals and their advisors can learn from this French case, and the issues involved in claims from non-married partners.

This is the second of three articles looking at potential claims arising from the estate of the French actor Alain Delon. The first article considered adult children’s challenges to a parent’s will under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”). This article will review claims brought under the 1975 Act by non-married partners. (See the first article here.)
 

The authors of this article are Samara Dutton, partner, and Harry O’Donohue, trainee solicitor, Collyer Bristow. The editors are pleased to share these insights, and invite readers to jump into the conversation. Email tom.burroughes@wealthbriefing.com

Samara Dutton


Harry O’Donohue

In the previous article, we examined the dispute between Delon’s three children over the unequal division of their father’s estate. Regardless of their sniping, they are all set to receive a significant amount.

That is in stark contrast to Delon’s carer, assistant and self-proclaimed lover, Hiromi Rollin, who, despite living part-time with the film icon for almost two decades before his death, receives nothing at all from his reported €2 million ($2.15 million) estate, under the terms of his will. 

It is not expected that the children will sympathise, bearing in mind their past conduct. On returning from a trip away in summer 2023, Rollin found that Delon’s children had locked her out of his property with the help of the police after the children had complained that she had been abusing their father and attempting to take advantage of his mental vulnerability. Somewhat brutally, the children did not even allow Rollin to return there to pay her last respects following Delon’s death.  

Whilst Rollin may well feel aggrieved at being written out of Delon’s will and at the treatment that she has received at the hands of his children, her status as a non-married partner leaves her very few options in terms of recovering anything from his estate under English law. 

Status of non-married partners under English law
The 1975 Act may assist. As explored in the first article, the 1975 Act seeks to ensure that qualifying applicants have received "reasonable financial provision" under the will or intestacy of the deceased.

One of the categories of potential claimant is a person who, during the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died, was living with the deceased as if they were a married couple or civil partners.

Rollin had been living part-time with Delon for 17 years and whilst his children claimed she was merely his assistant and carer, she maintains that they were in a romantic relationship for more than 30 years. Importantly, Delon himself admitted that the pair were lovers. Assuming the court would accept that evidence, the issue arises that, due to her eviction from his home, she would not fulfil the requirement of having lived with the deceased for the period of two years ending immediately before his death.

Whilst the case of Kaur v Dhaliwal & Anor (2014) EWHC 1991 Ch, (where the claimant and deceased lived together for one year and 49 weeks and had been in a relationship for some time prior to that), demonstrates that the court is willing to exercise leniency with regards to this requirement, Rollin had not lived with Delon for more than a year by the time of his death and that length of separation would likely prove too great for the court to overlook.

Rollin’s remaining option under the 1975 Act would be to claim as a dependant of Delon’s. This category of claimant covers anyone in respect of whom the deceased was making a substantial contribution in money or money’s worth towards their reasonable needs, but, importantly, the contribution cannot be commercial in nature. 

The provision of a home is a contribution to “needs” in this respect so anyone who lived in property owned or financed by the deceased at, or around the time of their death, should qualify to make a claim under this category. Of course, in Rollin’s case, the question of whether the court views her cohabitation with Delon as consideration for her services as his carer and assistant, rather than as the result of a romantic relationship between the two, would be determinative as to success. But the important point is that there is no prescribed time limit for dependency. That said, if the claimant has been living perfectly well by their own resources for a significant period prior to the deceased’s passing, that is likely to undermine the assertion that reasonable provision has not been made for them, because they have already demonstrated the ability to provide for themselves. 

We do not know Rollin’s circumstances, but assuming that she was cut off from Delon’s money as well as him and his home in the summer of 2023, then most likely she would need to demonstrate that she struggled financially from that point on, for a claim as a dependant to succeed.  

Comparison with status of married partners
It is worth comparing the position of non-married partners like Rollin, with spouses or civil partners under the 1975 Act. Spouses and civil partners are a further category of claimant but they are distinct from all other categories of claimant under the Act because the standard of provision which the court seeks to provide them is what it is ‘reasonable’ for them to receive. That means what is reasonable taking into account all relevant factors. Their claims are not limited to what is reasonable for them to receive “for their maintenance,” which is the lower standard of provision applicable to all other claimants. 

Spouses and civil partners can therefore expect to receive an award that is reflective of the standard of living they had when the deceased was alive, not just what they require for basic existence. In deciding what proportion of the total estate to award spouses and civil partners, the court often applies a “divorce crosscheck” where it considers what they would have received if they had been divorced from the deceased on the day they died. Normally this means a starting point of 50 per cent of the estate. In practice this means that spouses and civil partners are usually the claimants who stand to receive the most from claims under the 1975 Act.

The above illustrates that, despite the societal shift away from the traditional family that has fuelled the increase in inheritance disputes, the existence of a formal union between partners remains for the courts a persuasive factor in determining who should benefit most from a contested estate. 

Comment  
The existence of a relationship, even a long-term one, is not in itself sufficient for a non-married partner to establish a claim to the deceased’s assets outside of the provisions of their will.  For such applicants to claim, there are two main options: either the applicant must have lived with the deceased as if they were spouses or civil partners for two years up until the date of death of the deceased or the applicant would need to have been being maintained by the deceased at (or around) the time of death. Should neither of these requirements be met, as would be the case in Hiromi Rollin’s situation, the non-married partner will be left with nothing other than that which is already left to them under the will. If they do qualify to bring a claim under the 1975 Act, any award will be limited to what is reasonable for their maintenance.