“Daughters accuse step-mother of writing them out of father’s Will”
21 July 2011
We acted on this high-profile matter.
Martin acted for the three Defendants, which was heard by His Honour Judge Norris QC in an 8-day trial in July 2011. Judgment is awaited later this year. The matter involves an Estate valued in excess of £4 million with allegations of undue influence and the Deceased lacking knowledge and approval when executing his Will. This case was widely reported in the national press.
George Wharton was a successful business man, with assets in excess of £4 million. Several days before he died on 26 September 2008, he was diagnosed with terminal cancer and returned on 23 September 2008. On the same day, Mr Wharton signed a Will leaving his entire Estate to his long-term partner and then subsequently married her within one hour. Mr Wharton had 3 children who believed the Will was only obtained through undue influence and that Mr Wharton did not understand the content. Prior to his death, Mr Wharton told several friends (who did not benefit from the Will) that he wanted to ultimately leave substantial assets to his daughters. Mr Wharton also assured his daughter, Vicki, on the same day he signed the Will that she would receive part of his Estate and shortly after signing the Will, told Vicki there was “nothing to worry about and that everything was taken care of”.
The Will which Mr Wharton signed on 23 September 2008 only refers to 2 daughters, not 3, and states the 2 daughters have already received reasonable financial provision, which they had not. Mr Wharton’s wedding was arranged by his partner and his family were not invited to the wedding nor were they made welcome at the funeral.
The matter was heard by His Honour Judge Norris QC in an 8-day trial in July 2011. Judgment is likely to be handed down later this year.
“Fiancee kept lawyer’s death secret from his family for 4 months, Court battle over £800,000 Will”
1 July 2011
Wright Hassall acted on behalf of the Executor in this high-profile matter.
Martin acted for the successful Claimant in arguing that the Deceased was domiciled in England at the date of death. This case was widely reported in the national press.
Mr Morris was appointed as an Executor of his friend’s Will who unfortunately had a very poor relationship with his family. The Deceased left specific instructions which Mr Morris and his fiancée were to follow upon his death. Mr Morris and the Deceased’s fiancée complied with the Deceased’s wishes, which ultimately left none of his Estate to his family (save for an uncle) and immediate family were not to be notified of his death. The Deceased’s mother, brother and sister subsequently issued proceedings on 2 counts. Firstly, on the basis that the Deceased was domiciled in Belgium and the English Will did not therefore apply and secondly that if the Deceased was not domiciled in Belgium, his Will is invalid due to the creation of a sham trust and was allegedly obtained by undue influence.
Judgment was handed down on 12 July 2011 confirming that the Deceased was in fact domiciled in England despite working in France during the week and visiting Belgium at the weekend, staying initially at his fiancee’s family’s house and latterly at his fiancee’s house.
The case will now continue to establish the Deceased’s English Will is valid. The trial is expected to take place early next year.
“Brain tumour turned my husband into a transvestite and made him change his Will: disinherited widow’s battle over £525,000 estate”
13 July 2011
In 2003 Mrs Smith separated from her husband but never divorced. At the time the husband had made a Will leaving the majority of his estate to Mrs Smith. In 2005 the husband changed his Will, leaving his estate instead to his 2 brothers and 4 nieces and nephews. The husband subsequently died in 2009.
It is Mrs Smith’s position that the 2005 Will is invalid as she states that her husband was not of sound mind when he changed his Will and that she had been promised the estate.
The above case raises issues of testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval, proprietary estoppel and the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act 1975.
“Tycoon’s mysterious death and an internet bride battling his family over £1.5 million fortune”
18 June 2011
On 27 January 2007 Barry Pring married his internet bride, Anna Zuizina, aged 29, in Kiev, initially believing her to be a teacher, only to find out she was a stripper. Mr Pring was a wealthy business man and Miss Zuizina had little wealth. After marrying, Mr Pring spent most of his time in England whilst Miss Zuizina spent the majority of her time in the Ukranine. They communicated largely by email and met infrequently.
One year after the marriage Mr Pring visited Ms Zuizina on Valentine’s day, arriving in Kiev at 5.00pm and attending a restaurant later the same night. After the meal, Mr Pring was subsequently hit by a car travelling at 80 mph and subsequently died.
The family of Mr Pring are very suspicious of the death whilst Miss Zuizina is adamant that she was in love with Mr Pring and that she did not marry Mr Pring for money. The case continues.
Apart from the potential criminal matters, the above case raises issues relating to intestacy, revoking a Will and the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act 1975.
“Mother leaves all her £486,000 fortune to animal charities after row with daughter about the name of her grandchild”
9 February 2011
In 2004 Melita Jackson died leaving a Will dated 2002, in which her Estate valued at £486,000 was left to the charities, The Blue Cross, RSPB and the RSPCA. Melita’s daughter, Heather Ilott has claimed that her mother only left her out of the Will due to her calling her fifth child Ellen, the name of the sister-in-law and which Melita did not like.
Heather has issued a claim pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family & Dependents) Act 1975 seeking reasonable financial provision. A District Judge found that Heather was entitled to £50,000 from the Estate. However not satisfied with this sum, Heather has subsequently appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal. Her barrister has argued “the whole purpose of the Inheritance Act was to safeguard close members of the family against unreasonable provision from the Deceased’s Estate”. The barrister has further argued that it was “unreasonable for Mrs Jackson to have left her daughter, who depended on a family income of £14,000 in 2007, out of her Will when she is in such financial need”. In response, the barrister for the charities has argued that Heather’s financial position is due to her own “lifestyle choices” which include having 5 children.
The Court of Appeal Judges have reserved their Judgment.
“Army Major cleared of suppressing Will to cheat his dead father’s mistress out of £500,000”
17 December 2010
Following the death of Charles Napier, his mistress, Rowena Ferneley claimed that she had been cheated out of a £500,000 inheritance, by his son, Major Steven Napier, who allegedly conspired to destroy the Will. Ms Furneley claimed Charles had promised to leave her “virtually everything” including the £350,000 Toley Cottage, near Calborne and that a Will existed confirming this. Major Napier denied seeing such a Will and that the only relevant document they found at “Toley Cottage was a draft unsigned Will from 2002 in an old briefcase”.
The Judge concluded “without enthusiasm” that Charles Napier died without making a valid Will, even though he believed Charles Napier’s “meticulous character made it likely that there was, or is, a valid Will somewhere”.
The above case highlights the importance of making a Will, notifying family members and/or friends of its existence and where it is located.
“Daughter wins back £2 million estate left to RSPCA after over turning parent’s Will”
10 October 2009
Dr Christine Gill has successfully challenged her mother’s last Will following her death, in which the entire £2 million estate, largely comprising of a farm, was left to the RSPCA. Dr Gill had previously spent thousands of hours of unpaid work helping to run the farm on the understanding she would inherit the estate. The mother leaving everything to the RSPCA came as a surprise to Dr Gill as the mother was said to have “a dislike” of the charity. The mother suffered from a ‘social phobia’ which meant she could not talk to strangers, unless she was with someone, she knew. It was argued the mother’s Will simply repeated the father’s wishes. The father was described by Judge James Allen QC as being “a bully and stubborn self-opinionated, domineering man, who was prone to losing his temper”.
The above case raises issues including proprietary estoppel, undue influence and the lack of knowledge and approval.
For a no-obligation discussion on disputing a will, please contact Martin Oliver on 01926 880751.
