Sham Trusts and the fight for a family's inheritance

After a father of two died, declarations of trust surfaced that threatened to divert the bulk of his estate away from his wife and their two (then) minor children. The High Court found the declarations of trusts to be shams. If you are worried that estate assets may not be what they seem, VWV's Contentious Probate team can help you protect your rights.

Background

When Abbas Moaven died in 2012, aged just 44, he left behind his wife Gabriela and their two children, then aged eight and five. His will divided his estate equally between the three of them. Shortly before Abbas died, a series of declarations of trust were prepared in respect of four London properties held in his sole name, each one asserting that the properties had always been shared equally between Abbas, his brother Amir and their mother. The practical effect, if upheld, would have been to reduce the estate to Gabriela and the children significantly.

Fourteen years on, the estate remained unadministered and no full grant of probate had been obtained. Master Bowles, sitting in the Business and Property Courts, found that these declarations were shams, that the trust arrangements described in the declarations had no basis in fact, and that the full value of the properties belonged to Abbas's estate. The case is a powerful reminder that the courts will look carefully at arrangements that appear designed to diminish the entitlements or attempt to avoid or prejudice claims pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.

Three points to note

• Declarations of trust are not bulletproof. A declaration of trust may look authoritative on paper, but the court will look behind it. In Teixeira v Moaven, the deceased executed multiple versions of the declarations, each one proposing a different ownership split. Master Bowles found that the parties simply "shuffled the pack" of possible trusts to find whichever version best suited their purpose of reducing the estate.

• Executor conflicts of interest can paralyse an estate for years. Abbas's executors included his own brother, who was personally claiming a proportion of the estate's most valuable assets, along with the solicitor who had drafted the very documents under challenge. None of them could act independently. It took formal removal proceedings, replacement by independent solicitors, and years of litigation before the estate could be properly administered. If you are concerned that an executor has a personal interest that conflicts with their duty to the estate, VWV can advise on removal applications under the Administration of Justice Act 1985.

• Limitation: The Supreme Court's 2026 decision in Zedra Trust Co. (Jersey) Ltd v THG plc played a pivotal, if unexpected, role in this case. Master Bowles held that claims under section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (transactions intended to defraud creditors) carry no statutory limitation period, overturning previous authority that suggested a twelve-year longstop. That means a transaction designed to put assets beyond the reach of those entitled to them can potentially be challenged years, even decades, after it was carried out. For families who only discover the truth long after a death, this is a significant and welcome development in the law.

How VWV can help you

VWV's specialist contentious probate solicitors regularly advise clients facing exactly these kinds of challenges.

Whether you are a spouse who suspects estate assets have been hidden, a beneficiary blocked by conflicting executors, or someone facing a claim under the Inheritance Act 1975, VWV's contentious probate team offers clear-headed and strategic advice. If something does not feel right, it is worth having a conversation early. The sooner you seek advice, the more options are likely to be available to you.

Teixeira v Moaven [2026] EWHC 1215 (Ch)

For more information or advice about family's inheritance, please get in touch with Rebecca Stapleton in our Contentious Probate team.