What happens if your former spouse dies before a financial settlement is reached? 

Divorce is, at times, not straightforward, and the financial side of it can sometimes take months or years to resolve. Most people going through that process do not stop to consider what would happen if their former spouse were to die before a financial settlement has been reached. A High Court judgment handed down earlier this year, Kars v Brown and others [2026] EWHC 31 (Fam), answers that question in circumstances that will be familiar to many: a long marriage, a decree absolute (now known as a Final Order of Divorce), financial proceedings that stalled due to a lack of disclosure, and a death that brought everything to an abrupt halt.  

The outcome is a reminder not only for former spouses who find themselves in a similar position but also for those who are appointed to act for the estate where the deceased left unresolved financial obligations behind them.  

What happened  

Ms Kars and Mr Lamb had been married for 18 years. Their marriage was dissolved by decree absolute in 2019, before any financial remedy proceedings had been issued. Those proceedings were eventually started in early 2020, but progress was slow. Mr Lamb repeatedly failed to provide the financial disclosure the court required, and a costs order was made against him as a result. Before the adjourned hearing could take place, he died without making a Will, leaving Ms Kars with no financial provision at all under the rules of intestacy.  

Ms Kars brought a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 as a former spouse. The estate resisted the claim. The court found in her favour.  

The intestacy point  

Because Mr Lamb died without a Will, his estate therefore passed under the rules of intestacy. Those rules do not provide for former spouses: once a marriage has ended by decree absolute, an ex-spouse has no automatic entitlement to inherit. Ms Kars received nothing.  

The 1975 Act provides a mechanism for this and allowed Ms Kar to seek provision from Mr Lamb’s Estate even where the marriage had ended. The court must determine whether the applicant requires reasonable financial provision, based on the relevant factors involved. In this case, the court had little difficulty concluding that Ms Kar had entitlement and that provision should be made.  

Does the decree absolute matter?  

One of the central arguments advanced on behalf of the estate was that the decree absolute, combined with the length of time the parties had lived apart, should weigh heavily against Ms Kars. The court rejected that argument. The fact that the marriage had formally ended, and that the parties had been separated for some years, was not treated as determinative. What mattered was the substance of the situation: the marriage had been long, the financial relationship between the parties had never been properly unwound, and Ms Kars’s claims arising out of the marriage had never been resolved. The absence of a final financial order meant those claims remained live.  

It is also worth noting that it was Ms Kars herself who had applied for the decree absolute, before financial proceedings had even been issued. That was raised by the respondents as a reason to treat her claim less sympathetically. The court did not accept it. The circumstances in which the decree absolute was obtained did not change the fact that the financial consequences of the marriage had been left entirely unresolved at the time of Mr Lamb’s death.  

The disclosure failures  

A particularly significant aspect of the case was the conduct of Mr Lamb during the financial remedy proceedings. He had repeatedly failed to provide proper disclosure of his assets. During the hearing, it emerged that the administrator of the estate had sold a classic car, a Humber Super Snipe, which Mr Lamb had failed to declare and had actively denied still owning. The court was entitled to take that history into account. Where financial relief proceedings have been left unresolved at death, the conduct of the parties, including any failures to disclose assets honestly, will be assessed by the court when determining the claim. Attempts to conceal assets or frustrate financial relief proceedings do not become irrelevant simply because the person responsible has since died.  

The property dispute  

The most significant asset in the estate was a property at 47 Princes Street, in which both Ms Kars and the estate claimed full beneficial ownership. In simple terms, the dispute centred on who was beneficially entitled to the property, regardless of whose name appeared on the legal title. The respondents argued that the High Court could not resolve that dispute as part of the 1975 Act proceedings. The court rejected that argument and confirmed that it was both entitled and required to determine the beneficial ownership of the property in order to establish the net estate. Ms Kars had a parallel claim running in the County Court, but that did not prevent the High Court from dealing with the issue in the context of the 1975 Act claim.  

The court found that the estate held a 50% beneficial interest in the property, valued at approximately £120,000, and ordered that interest to be transferred to Ms Kars outright. That transfer addressed her most pressing need, which was housing.  

What the respondents did not argue  

Another important lesson from the case is that the court expects parties to engage realistically with claims rather than simply resist them. The estate’s representatives took an entrenched approach and did not actively defend the proceedings in that they failed to advance a any realistic alternative to outright denial. They did not argue that Ms Kars’s housing need could be met by a life interest or a right to occupy the property rather than an outright transfer of the beneficial interest. That omission was costly. Had a more limited form of provision been put forward, the court may have considered it. Instead, by failing to engage constructively with the claim or propose any middle ground, the respondents left the court with little assistance as to what a more proportionate form of provision might look like. It is a reminder that defending a 1975 Act claim effectively means engaging with it proactively and objectively.  

What this means for you  

If you are currently going through a divorce and financial matters have not yet been resolved, it is worth understanding what would happen to your position if your former spouse were to die before a settlement is reached. This is a scenario many people never consider, and there are some common misconceptions worth addressing.  

The first is that obtaining a decree absolute/Final Order of divorce ends all financial ties between the parties. It does not. A decree absolute/Final Order of divorce dissolves the marriage as a legal status, but it has no effect on financial claims. Those claims remain open until a financial order is made by the court and sealed. If one former spouse dies before that happens, the surviving spouse may, in some circumstances, be able to seek provision under the 1975 Act.  

The second misconception is that separation, particularly a long separation, resolves matters in practice, even if no order has been made. As this case confirms, it does not. The length of time the parties have lived apart is a factor the court will consider, but it does not neutralise the financial consequences of a long marriage where the underlying claims have never been determined. Indeed, Financial Relief proceedings can be issued many years, post separation. It is however important to consider the impact of any re-marriage on financial relief claims as this can prevent or severely restrict them being pursued. Specialist advice should be sought in this regard from a family law practitioner.  

The third is that there is nothing to be done if a former spouse dies without leaving a Will. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 is specifically designed to address such situations, and a claim may still succeed where the financial arrangements of a marriage were never properly finalised. Each case will depend on its particular facts; however, the absence of a Will, or the existence of a Will that makes no provision, does not automatically prevent a claim for financial provision being made  

The same considerations apply if you are defending a claim of this kind. Understanding the strength of the claim, the history of any financial proceedings between the parties, and the nature of the assets in the estate is essential to mounting a realistic and effective response. As this case demonstrates, an approach that fails to engage with the substance of the claim can result in an unfavourable outcome.  

There is a strict time limit to bring a claim under the 1975 Act which ordinarily must be brought within six months of the grant of probate, and whilst the court has some discretion to extend that period, it is not exercised readily. It is important to obtain advice at an early stage to understand your options and position.  

Lessons from Kars v Brown  

Kars v Brown is a reminder that the financial consequences of a long marriage do not automatically end with the decree absolute/Final Order of divorce, and that death during unresolved financial proceedings does not prevent matters being dealt with by the court.  

The Courts have wide discretion and powers under the 1975 Act to assist parties where financial relief proceedings have not been concluded upon the death of a former spouse. It is crucial that parties are proactive, sensible and willing to look at the claim from a factual point of view.  

The Courts will take account of any conduct or failure to adhere to due process when making their determinations and it is important that tailored advice is obtained to understand your position to ensure the best possible outcome.  

It is always advisable to resolve financial matters prior to applying for decree absolute/Final order of divorce in order to best protect your position and provide finality.  

About the Author: Jodie Walmsley is an experienced litigator at Coodes, specialising in contentious probate matters including a broad range of inheritance and estate disputes – challenges to the validity of wills, claims under Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, dispute involving executors and trustees, claims relating to revocation of wills and breaches of fiduciary duties.  

Get in Touch:  jodie.walmsley@coodes.co.uk 01736 352233