The Courage to Mediate an Inheritance Dispute: When It’s About More Than Money

Why do families sometimes spend tens of thousands of pounds arguing over an inheritance?

Why can a dispute over a relatively modest sum, a piece of jewellery or a family possession result in years of litigation?

And why do siblings who have known one another all their lives sometimes find it impossible to agree?

The answer is that inheritance disputes are rarely just about money.

They can involve grief, recognition, perceived favouritism, childhood experiences and deeply held beliefs about fairness.

Sometimes the inheritance is simply the final expression of a much older family conflict.

When an inheritance becomes a symbol

Consider two siblings disputing the distribution of their parent’s estate. One believes that the will unfairly favours the other.

The financial difference may be relatively modest. But the disappointed sibling may interpret the will as evidence that their parent loved or valued them less.

The dispute is no longer simply about the distribution of assets. It is about their place in the family.

A particular possession may carry enormous emotional significance despite having little monetary value. A painting, watch or piece of jewellery may represent childhood memories, affection or a connection with the deceased.

This helps explain why apparently disproportionate inheritance litigation can become so difficult to resolve.

Naming, blaming and claiming

The academic work of William Felstiner, Richard Abel and Austin Sarat (1981) provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding how grievances develop. Their research described a process of naming, blaming and claiming.

A beneficiary first recognises that they have suffered what they perceive to be an injustice. They attribute responsibility to another family member, an executor or the circumstances surrounding the will. They then demand a remedy.

In our view, the process of pursuing that remedy may intensify the grievance. Every unanswered letter, disputed document or rejected proposal can become further evidence of perceived unfairness.

The dispute acquires its own history, separate from the original inheritance question.

Why family members see fairness differently

Experimental research by Loewenstein, Issacharoff, Camerer and Babcock (1993) into self-serving assessments of fairness helps explain why parties can genuinely disagree about what is reasonable.

One sibling may believe that equality requires an estate to be divided equally. Another may believe that fairness requires recognition of years spent caring for a parent. A third may regard the terms of the will as an expression of the deceased’s wishes which should be respected.

Each may have a coherent moral argument. Yet their conceptions of fairness are different.

This is one reason why inheritance disputes can be particularly resistant to ordinary financial negotiation.

The psychological need for recognition

Tom Tyler’s research into procedural justice (1990) emphasises the importance of being heard and treated respectfully. That principle can be especially important in family disputes.

A beneficiary may want an opportunity to explain why they feel excluded. An executor may want family members to understand the responsibilities and difficulties involved in administering the estate. A sibling may want acknowledgement of the care they provided to a parent.

These concerns may not be fully addressed by a court’s determination of legal rights. Mediation offers a confidential opportunity to explore them.

Why an apology can matter

Jennifer Robbennolt’s empirical research into apologies and settlement (2003) found that apologies can influence willingness to resolve disputes, depending on their content and context.

In an inheritance dispute, an acknowledgement may sometimes matter more than a financial concession. A sibling might want recognition that they were excluded from important family decisions. Another may want an apology for allegations made during the administration of the estate.

A genuine acknowledgement can sometimes remove an obstacle to settlement which money alone cannot overcome.

However, mediation cannot compel forgiveness or manufacture an apology. Nor should anyone be pressured into making an admission which they do not accept.

The sunk cost problem

Inheritance litigation can become particularly difficult to abandon once substantial costs have been incurred. Work by Russell Korobkin and Chris Guthrie on psychological barriers to settlement (1994, 1997) explores how the way options are framed can influence whether litigants accept or reject settlement proposals.

To take an illustrative example, a beneficiary who has spent £25,000 challenging a will may feel unable to accept a compromise because they have already invested so much. The expenditure may be accompanied by years of emotional stress, family division and personal sacrifice.

Continuing the litigation can then feel necessary to justify what has already happened. But further proceedings may reduce the assets available to the family and prolong the conflict.

The financial and emotional costs of litigation can therefore become part of the problem.

Why mediation requires courage

Proposing mediation in a family dispute can feel uncomfortable. A beneficiary may fear appearing weak. An executor may worry that suggesting compromise will be interpreted as an admission of wrongdoing. Family members may be reluctant to sit in the same room after years of hostility.

But mediation does not require everyone to agree about the past.

It can take place with parties in separate rooms, including online, where direct contact would be difficult. The mediator can help the parties explore possible resolutions without requiring them to surrender their legal positions.

An agreement might involve financial adjustments, arrangements concerning particular possessions, the sale or retention of property, or practical steps for completing estate administration.

Any settlement must take account of the relevant legal rights, necessary parties and formalities.

The difference between being right and moving forward

An inheritance dispute can become a search for vindication. A beneficiary may want a judge to confirm that they were treated unfairly. An executor may want judicial confirmation that they acted properly.

Those objectives can be understandable. But litigation may not resolve the deeper emotional questions. A judgment cannot necessarily repair family relationships or provide the recognition someone hoped to receive from a deceased parent.

Sometimes the parties must decide whether further litigation is likely to achieve what they truly want. That is not an easy decision. It may require accepting that a perfect resolution is impossible.

The courage to mediate

There are disputes which require judicial determination, particularly where serious allegations, issues of capacity, undue influence or the protection of vulnerable parties are involved. Mediation is not a substitute for necessary legal safeguards, and not every probate dispute is suitable for it.

But many inheritance disputes contain issues which can be resolved by agreement.

The parties may never agree about what happened in the past. They may never share the same understanding of fairness. Yet they may still be able to agree how the estate should be dealt with.

Sometimes the greatest act of courage in an inheritance dispute is choosing not to allow the dispute to consume what remains of the family’s inheritance — financial or emotional.

About ProMediate inheritance mediation

ProMediate provides independent mediation for inheritance, probate, contested wills, estate administration and related family property disputes throughout England and Wales. Information about how mediation is charged is set out on our fees page, or you can contact us to discuss arranging a mediation.

A note on sources: the academic works listed below are cited for the frameworks and findings they describe. The examples and observations in this article are ProMediate’s own commentary and are not claims about the motivations of any particular litigant.