In a rare occurrence, the High Court invalidated a will due to undue influence.
Background:
Mr. William Oliver had five surviving children and passed away in May 2018. He and his wife June executed mirror wills in 1985 and 2009 following the death of their eldest son who had Down Syndrome. The 2009 will divided their estate equally between the siblings following their death and was in the custody of Rodney. June passed away in October 2014. After June's death, William's personality changed. He was June's executor, yet made no decisions, leaving everything to Rodney.
William became almost completely dependent upon Rodney, who controlled what he ate and drank, what medicines he took, and who had access to him. His dependency was such that, when Rodney was not present, he asked continually to know where Rodney was and appeared lost if he did not know. He also suffered a heart attack in 2005 and was diagnosed in 2010 with extensive small vessel arterial disease in the brain. He also suffered many health issues in 2014.
There was also some animosity between Rodney and his siblings following a lifetime gift from their mother to each child, except for himself, due to their complicated relationship.
In September 2015, William signed a new will – professionally prepared – settling his entire estate on trust, with his eldest son Rodney as executor, trustee and sole beneficiary.
Following Mr. Oliver's death in 2018, his youngest daughter, Jane, issued two claims against Rodney. The first claim sought a declaration that the 2015 will was invalid on the grounds William lacked testamentary capacity at the time it was executed and, alternatively, that it was the product of undue influence exerted by Rodney against their father. The other siblings gave evidence in support of Jane's claim. The second claim had been brought pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 by the youngest and her older brother and also against the eldest for reasonable financial provision, which if the first claim was to succeed, the second claim would not arise.
There were various attempts by the claimants' solicitors to discuss the matter with Rodney without success. The claim proceeded on written evidence alone pursuant to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR)r 57.10(5).
Decision:
In this lengthy judgement, the High Court considered the burden of proof, the standard of proof, the role of judges, the fallibility of memory and the reasons for judgement.
HHJ Matthews found that Mr. Oliver failed the third and fourth limbs of the Banks v Goodfellow test. The Judge ruled that the will had been made entirely overborne by Rodney for reasons that their late father had suffered from a stroke and his brain had shown moderate Alzheimer's which had rendered him unable to have been in a position to understand and appreciate the claims to which he had sought to give effect. Moreover, his false beliefs about wrongdoing on the part of his other sons, and his complete dependence on Rodney, meant he was not able to comprehend the claims on his estate.
The Court noted that, even if Mr. Oliver had possessed the capacity, the dominance and control of Rodney over his father was complete and that it would amount to undue influence.
The Court granted probate in solemn form as to the earlier version of the will to be reconstituted under Rule 54 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules 1987.
As the first claim was successful, the second claim under the Inheritance Act 1975 fell away.
Implications:
This decision is a rare example of a will being overturned both on undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity. It demonstrates that if a person can establish dominance over the deceased's decision-making generally, it can help establish undue influence in relation to the will. However, it must be noted that the facts of this case were particularly extreme.
For mental capacity, this case highlights that in some circumstances, a testator can be found to lack capacity, even if no dementia was diagnosed.
Source:EWHC | 09-10-2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
