Predatory marriage – a marriage that takes place in circumstances where one party to the marriage has been induced to marry by the other party who is acting solely for financial gain.
There is already a criminal offence of “forced marriage”. A person commits an offence punishable with up to 7 years imprisonment if they use violence, threats or coercion for the purposes of causing another person to marry or if they cause a person lacking mental capacity to consent to marriage in circumstances where they believe or ought reasonably to believe that their conduct would cause the other person to marry without free and full consent.
Beyond outright coercion it is difficult to prove that a person has been induced to marry for untoward reasons and it is not easy to precisely define and legislate against predatory marriage.
One of the consequences of marriage is that unless a previous will has been made in contemplation of marriage between the person making the will and a particular person a marriage will automatically cancel any prior will. This is provided for in Section 18 of the Wills Act 1837. A Private Members’ Bill introduced in 2018 proposed that section 18 be cancelled so that a previous will would remain valid after marriage. This proposal causes other problems but that is for a later discussion.
Consider the 2024 case of Langley v Qin. Robert Harrington died in February 2020, just 11 months after marrying his carer, Guixang Qin. The marriage took place just one year after Robert had lost his first wife. He had been married to his first wife for 66 years. When Robert married Guixang he was 93 years old and Guixang was 54. They had known each other for 9 months. Robert’s final will was written 2 months before his death. He left his entire £680,000 estate to Guixang. After Robert’s death his daughter, Jill Langley, commenced proceedings to set the will aside as she believed Guixang had lured her father into a predatory marriage.
Ultimately the Court ruled in favour of Jill and set aside the will on multiple grounds. Citing medical evidence, the Court acknowledged Robert’s paranoid delusional disorder, that led him to believe that he had been a senior officer in the army that Jill had stolen his horses and that he was estranged from Jill. The Court found that Robert lacked capacity to make a valid will.
The Court could not find any evidence that Robert had read his will before signing it and highlighted Guixang’s influence over Robert’s finances and her “guiding hand” in shopping around local solicitors until a will writer was found who was prepared to make a will for Robert.
The Court found a significant element of impropriety in that Guixang had also been involved in removing over £230,000 from Robert’s accounts both before and after his death without any disclosure to HMRC in applying for probate.
At first glance this looks like a success for Jill. The Court had ruled in her favour. Robert’s earlier will had left his entire estate to Jill. However, because of the provisions of Section 18 of the Wills Act 1837 this earlier will had been cancelled by the marriage. The Court had no power to set aside the marriage and so when the Court set aside the later will Robert died intestate. On intestacy at the time of Robert’s death Guixang inherited the first £270,000 of Robert’s estate plus half of the remainder. Guixang would therefore inherit approximately £470,000 and Jill £200,000. Some consolation may be that Guixang was ordered to pay all of the costs on a full indemnity basis.
