Share.

16 Comments

  1. BestButtons on

    Article contents:

    *By Madeleine Ross, Money Reporter, 24 May 2025 – 09:01AM BST*

    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.”

  2. DRSandDuvetDays on

    There are already protections. You can make a claim against an estate on the basis of a marriage being void because of the lack of capacity of the spouse.

    Changing the will rules would be crazy, this is such a small risk. The idea is that previous wills are revoked on the basis of you would want your estate to be shared between your spouse and any children you have.

  3. NikolaVandal on

    So we will also be banning predatory marriages where people are lined up to (generally older men) as children?

  4. As usual, an awful headline…

    No marriage will be banned, but they may modify the will act so that marriage does not automatically invalidate previous wills.

  5. Feels like it would make more sense to confirm the person has capacity to enter the marriage, rather than letting them live whatever sort of life the predatory spouse allows and merely safeguarding the money for their children. But the money is the important part of this story, eh?

  6. Guess this is more important than banning cousin marriages and having severely disabled children 🙄

  7. HereticLaserHaggis on

    As long as they’re mentally competant they should be able to give their money to whoever they want. It’s not up to someone who doesn’t know the individual to decide that a relationship is predatory.

  8. Embarrassed_Grass_16 on

    How is it that we as a society can decide that old people aren’t capable of consenting to marriage and shouldn’t be allowed to choose euthanasia…………….but have sufficient mental faculties to vote?????

    There’s another age-based demographic of people who can’t make their own medical decisions or marry and we rightfully deny them voting privileges.

  9. Realistic-River-1941 on

    So would this wreck my plans to be groomed by the entire Swedish women’s beach volleyball team when I’m 97?

  10. The headline is misleading – the marriages themselves aren’t being banned, instead what’s being considered is scrapping the rule that automatically invalidates pre-existing wills at the point of marriage .

  11. WaitroseValueVodka on

    How can you ban this legally? Shall we also ban SAGA holidays for defrauding grandchildren of their inheritance?

    Assuming they have mental capacity these men are allowed to be led by their dick and make an unwise decision. If their family are unhappy they should take this up with their dad, not the law.

    Safrguarding against coerced marriages of teenagers to grown men should be the priority, not this.

  12. > But a major report from the Law Commission, published last week, recommended that wills should no longer be discarded when a person marries.

    I’m a little surprised [this report](https://lawcom.gov.uk/news/recommendations-to-modernise-wills-law-to-promote-testamentary-freedom/) didn’t get more attention when published last week. They have been consulting on this for nearly a decade.

    This isn’t just about protecting ~~boomers who aren’t keeping an eye on their~~ elderly relatives. This is part of a broader bundle of packages aimed at updating English and Welsh laws around wills to bring them in line to the 20th and hopefully 21st century (the current rules are rather old) – this includes stuff like allowing for electronic wills, letting 16-17 year-olds make wills, and tweaking some rules around capacity.

    The headline one here comes from the fact that “Under the Wills Act 1837, a person’s will is automatically revoked if they get married or form a civil partnership.” This is a weird oddity in law, the only situation where a will that was perfectly valid gets revoked automatically, and I’m not sure how many people are aware of this. It also leads to some weird consequences, as the Law Commission notes:

    > There is no single test for capacity under the law, and the test for capacity to marry has a lower threshold than the test for capacity to make a will. As a result, a person may have capacity to marry, and in doing so revoke their will, but lack capacity to make a new will. In some respects, however, the test for capacity to marry is irrelevant in this context, as even where a person lacks capacity to marry but nevertheless does so, the effect is the same: the marriage – a voidable marriage in this case – revokes any pre-existing will in the same way as a valid marriage.

    So there are situations where someone could get married (or try to get married), revoking their will, but be unable to make a new will.

    The Law Commission also highlighted that it isn’t the 1830s any more – marriage is a lot less of a singular, life-defining situation as it used to be:

    > The revocation rule was enacted in a social and legal context very different from today’s. In the light of the importance of testamentary freedom in the law, and the fact that a person’s will is not automatically revoked in any other circumstance, we were not sure that marriage and civil partnership warrant such singular treatment.

    The Law Commission noted that there are already protections for spouses and children in law – if someone’s will does not provide for people it should provide for, that person can sue to get a reasonable adjustment made (and this can be done in practice). But the opposite isn’t true; if someone who isn’t a spouse is “cut off” because the deceased re-married at the last minute and a will was revoked, there is no mechanism for them to challenge that.

    Anyway – there are some fun things in the whole report (disclaimer; I’ve only read the part on marriages revoking wills – the whole report is over 500 pages).

  13. Scary-Dot3069 on

    Forward thinking youths getting back the money from wealth hoarding boomers.
    /s

  14. My family is currently experiencing this and it’s heartbreaking. My 92 year old (very wealthy) grandfather fell under the spell of a 50 year old woman whilst my grandmother was dying of Alzheimer’s disease. We have no idea how they first met but within a few months of my grandmother passing she had moved in and they were married less than a year later. My poor mother and her siblings (who are all older than their new stepmother) have tried and tried to talk some sense into my grandfather but he just goes on the defensive and it ends in an argument and him not speaking to them for a few weeks. They don’t care about the money they just don’t want to see their dad being abused but he refuses to see the truth of the situation and she has poisoned him against his own children and grandchildren. We have now reached a very uncomfortable situation where if we want to see our grandfather we have to grit our teeth and smile at this evil woman and pretend we don’t know exactly what she is and what she’s doing.
    We are absolutely powerless to do anything, he is of sound mind and has changed his will so that everything goes to her and her family, the police aren’t interested as she hasn’t technically done anything illegal.

  15. NoRecipe3350 on

    Can completely agree with this, but marrying into wealth is a done thing since time immemorial. How do we determine which is real love and which is grooming. I suppose age would be the factor. A 25 year old women falling for a wealthy man a few years older is thinking ‘yup his financial stability will help me raise our kids’, that aspect doesn’t apply to elderly.

    but ti’s kinda taboo to talk about financial resources and falling in love.