An issue that is causing professional advisors increasing concern is how to protect the elderly and vulnerable from ‘predatory’ marriages.
A predatory marriage is a form of domestic abuse, specifically economic abuse.
It's where someone targets a vulnerable (often older person with limited mental capacity) to marry for financial benefit in the event of their death.
Comparisons have been drawn between predatory marriages and other emotionally abusive relationships, particularly those where the perpetrator of the abuse is coercive and controlling, as victims tend to be isolated from their family and friends.
In 2023, the Law Society reported that 21% of solicitors specialising in Wills and Estates were concerned that their clients have been the victim of predatory marriage. However, the prevalence of such marriages should be of concern not only for those solicitors who deal with Wills and Estates but also family lawyers, particularly those advising on nuptial agreements. A combined approach to prevent such abuse during the vulnerable person’s lifetime is therefore vital.
What is the effect of a predatory marriage during a vulnerable person’s lifetime?
Upon marriage, spouses acquire financial legal rights in relation to each other, including claims for property, periodical payments, and pensions. In addition, marriage will revoke any previous Will made by the vulnerable person, leaving the predatory spouse to benefit/inherit under the Intestacy Rules.
This is distressing for relatives where they see someone who, in their view, has abused a vulnerable person and then stands, by law, to gain from their abuse. The legal options to protect the vulnerable during their lifetime are, unfortunately, still limited.
One option is a nuptial agreement. Such agreements set out in writing a couple’s respective intentions in relation to how their assets should be divided in the event that the marriage were to break down and also death.
However, it is of note that a court will only uphold such agreements if it is satisfied that:
- It has been freely entered into by each party. This is satisfied provided that:
- there is no duress or undue influence applied by one party over the other; and
- the couple have time to reflect on the Agreement before it binds them. As a matter of best practice, if it is Pre-Nuptial Agreement, it should therefore be signed at least 6 weeks prior to the wedding.
- The parties have a full appreciation of its implications. This is satisfied provided that:
- the couple have both received independent legal advice on the terms of the Nuptial Agreement and its effect; and
- the couple have provided financial disclosure to one another, prior to entering into the Nuptial Agreement, such that they are aware of the claims/rights they may be foregoing by entering into the agreement.
- It must be fair to hold the parties to their agreement in the circumstances prevailing at the time it is relied upon.
There are some practical difficulties associated with such agreements. First, that they are not binding by the family courts of England and Wales. Secondly, if the marriage is predatory, often the first step is for the abuser to cut off contact between the abused and their family. In such circumstances, it may be difficult to access the vulnerable person and assess whether they are willing to enter into an agreement. Thirdly, such an agreement requires the free consent of the abuser who, if they have malign intent and wish to coerce or persuade the vulnerable person into handing over their entire estate, is unlikely to agree. That said, asking the abuser whether they are willing to enter into an agreement might prove a useful litmus test to assess their true intentions.
In cases where lack of consent can be proven, it is possible for the marriage to be reversed and annulled on the basis that it is “voidable”. If relatives can access and assess that the vulnerable person did not freely consent to the marriage, this may be a viable option during their lifetime. This would be a preferable alternative to a divorce and associated financial remedy proceedings where such abusive behaviour must be proved to the requisite legal standard, before it may or may not be taken into account in any award.
What is the effect of a predatory marriage on a vulnerable person’s estate on their death?
Sadly, it is often only in the event of that person’s death that the wider family become aware of the consequences of such a marriage or even that a marriage has taken place. The marriage can have the effect of completely upending the existing testamentary arrangements.
Under English law, an existing Will is automatically cancelled on marriage unless it was made in “anticipation of marriage”. Therefore any provision made for existing children or relatives or even charitable gifts are automatically wiped out by a predatory marriage.
What happens next depends on what the vulnerable person is persuaded to do by their abusive spouse. If they make no need will, the intestacy rules will apply and decide how the vulnerable person’s assets will be divided on their event of death. Under the rules, if the deceased left no children, the predatory spouse will get everything. If the deceased had children, the predatory spouse will get £322,000 plus half of the deceased’s remaining estate and all of the deceased’s personal chattels. This latter point can prove particularly heartbreaking for the deceased’s children. This is exactly what happened in the widely reported case of Joan Blass who died in 2016 aged 91. In this high-profile case, Joan Blass had been suffering from vascular dementia when she had married Colman Folan, who was 24 years her junior; as a result, he inherited her entire estate on her death. The deputy Registrar who conducted the Registry Office ceremony appeared satisfied that Joan knew what she was doing and acted freely despite the fact she could not recall her age or house number at the time. As a result, her daughter Daphne Franks, who was unaware her mother was married is campaigning to change the law on mental capacity to marry, where there is a presumption of sufficient capacity unless it can be proven otherwise.
Unlike what happened with Joan Blass, often the vulnerable person is persuaded or pressured by their predatory spouse to make a new Will which leaves everything to the predatory spouse. In that case, the relatives of the deceased are left with no option but to try and challenge the Will in order to undo the consequences of the predatory marriage.
In recent years, predatory marriages, like those between Joan and Colman, have gained increasing recognition, and campaign groups such as the Ann Craft Trust and Predatory Marriages UK offer valuable practical advice and support to victims and their families. However, the law is yet to be reformed to protect those who are risk. As a result, there is no straightforward answer to what can be done to save a relative from a predatory marriage.
Can the impact of a predatory marriage be challenged after the vulnerable person’s death?
As explained above, where the intestacy rules apply, the predatory spouse is automatically entitled to over half the estate (or all of it if it is worth £322,000 or less). If there is evidence that the marriage was not valid (because the deceased did not consent), it may be possible to challenge the marriage even after death. However, this would be an extremely difficult matter to prove. This leaves the deceased’s family with little options. It may be possible where a close family member who has been disregarded to make a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family Dependents) Act 1975. However, there are strict requirements for such claims to be successful and are based on the needs of the family member rather than their expectations of what they should have received from the deceased’s estate. Even if available, such applications take months, or even years to resolve and furthermore there are cost implications as these applications can be expensive.
Where the deceased has left a Will, it may be possible to challenge it. In cases of predatory marriage, this is likely to be on one of two bases. The first that the deceased was subject to undue influence from the predatory spouse; the second that the deceased did not know and approve the contents of the Will.
Undue influence challenges are notoriously difficult. It requires the family members challenging the Will to provide evidence to the Court that the deceased was coerced into making the Will. This is a very high bar and, given most cases of undue influence take place behind closed doors, very difficult to prove with evidence.
Often, Will challenges therefore also take the form of challenges to the deceased’s knowledge and approval. The deceased has to know they are making a Will and what the effect of the Will is. The fact pattern is often similar to an undue influence – the deceased’s relatives arguing that the deceased did not understand that they were cutting their children out from the estate. However, again, this is difficult to prove and, in the case of a predatory marriage, the testator may understand completely that they are disinheriting their children but may be doing it because of the pressure being exerted by their spouse.
However, the effect of challenging the Will is not to substitute it with what the Court thinks was the deceased’s true intentions. The effect is to replace it with the deceased’s previous Will which, if that has been revoked by the predatory marriage, means the deceased died intestate and the predatory spouse still ends up with over half the estate. Where the estate is substantial, it may be worth challenging the Will on the basis it saves half the estate from the predatory spouse. But it is still not a perfect solution.
Is reform coming?
The above summary of the protections available and options to undo the effect of a predatory marriage are somewhat bleak. However, calls for reform are being heard. On 16 May 2025, the Law Commission published its report on the reform of the Will regime in England and Wales. One particular point they focussed on is predatory marriage. The Law Commission proposed two reforms which would assist with some of the vulnerabilities outlined above. First, they proposed to remove the rule that a marriage or civil partnership automatically revokes a person’s Will. This deals with one of the primary ill-effects of a predatory marriage in that, once made, a predatory spouse would no longer be automatically entitled to extensive provision from their spouse’s estate on their death – the existing Will would continue to have effect. The predatory spouse would need to persuade the vulnerable person to change their Will.
The Law Commission has also taken steps to make it easier for the relatives of the victim of a predatory marriage to challenge such Wills. As noted above, the most obvious challenge to a Will executed as a result of pressure by a predatory spouse is one of undue influence. The difficulty, as noted above, has been that such claims have a high evidential burden which relatives have found difficult to meet. The Law Commission proposes to allow the Court to infer that there has been undue influence where the circumstances reasonably call for such an inference to be drawn. In that case, the burden then shifts to the predatory spouse (who would be the person seeking to give effect to the Will) to give explanations to show there was no undue influence. The proposed reform does not change the high evidential burden but it does put the burden on the predatory spouse to explain their relationship with the deceased and their involvement in the making of the deceased’s Will. This should assist the deceased’s family to overturn a Will executed under undue influence.
Conclusion
Whilst there are some proposals for reform, the effects of a predatory marriage are wide ranging and, unless someone can access the victim, very difficult to undo legally. It is therefore the best approach for a concerned family to keep in touch with their relative and to act swiftly where a predatory marriage is suspected, either to seek to cut off contact between the predatory spouse and the vulnerable individual, potentially with police assistance if necessary, or where that is not possible, to ensure that a new Will is drafted, ensuring the wishes of the previous Will are upheld.
