Troublesome wills

I've always been fascinated by long-drawn-out disputes over wills and inheritance. Some of the disputes might be justified, like if one sibling has inherited nothing but other siblings have inherited vast amounts, but a lot of disputes seem to be easily resolvable and not worth the time and effort. Not to mention huge legal fees.

I read that there has been a big increase in disputes over wills, partly because more people are severely hard-up and could do with a sizeable inheritance to bail them out. Partly also because the older generation are often very well-off as a result of rocketing house prices and are more likely to leave substantial sums to their descendants.

I was lucky that my mother's will was very simple and was dealt with quite easily, with neither myself, my sister, my brother in law or my niece disputing it in any way. She hadn't decided to leave £10,000 to the local cats' home or her favourite hairdresser.

Jenny and I have both made wills and hopefully they're equally straightforward and won't prompt nasty legal wrangles. We certainly haven't left money to any unlikely recipients like the local cats' home (if there is one). Nor have we left anything to any political party.

We did use a solicitor to write our wills, to ensure they were fully legal and wouldn't be challenged because of faulty wording or an invalid witness or some other beginner's error. DIY wills are tempting but open to subtle pitfalls.

But once a will is contested, the dispute can go on for years, with a large chunk of the inheritance vanishing in solicitors' fees. It's not unusual for legal fees in a long-running dispute to clock up hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Better not to give lawyers a field day.

Who needs grudges?

I don't understand people who hold grudges. Especially when they hold grudges not just for days but for years on end. What on earth do they achieve from it?

My father formed a grudge against me when I was 22 and didn't speak to me for 20 years. He wouldn't even let me into his house, so I had to see my mother at a local pub. There was no reasoning with him.

The grudge may be based on a complete misunderstanding of someone's words or actions, but they won't be corrected. They get some sort of emotional satisfaction from shutting the person out or refusing to treat them in a normal courteous fashion.

People are left out of wills in favour of the local dogs' home or some distant relative who is somehow seen as more deserving. People aren't invited to social gatherings or they're constantly abused and insulted behind their backs.

I've never held a grudge against anyone. Yes, there are people who've treated me badly or shunned me for no obvious reason, but I just put it down to "human error" and get on with my life. I don't want all that negative emotion festering away inside me.

Grudges can have such destructive consequences. From Putin having a long-standing grudge about the break-up of the Soviet Union to the next-door neighbour persisting with some convoluted boundary dispute to a local council hounding you for painting your door the wrong colour (this is currently happening to Miranda Dickson in Edinburgh).

There are plenty of people I could hold grudges against, but I'm just not going to waste my time and energy on them.

Will trickster

Wills are normally dealt with behind closed doors and out of the public eye. It's generally assumed that the will was properly dealt with and the named beneficiaries got whatever was due to them.

But I've commented before that there's little official monitoring of how wills are handled, and there's plenty of scope for skullduggery and fraud if someone is so minded.

As the sole executor of my mum's will, I could easily have siphoned off a large sum by making out she had less money than she actually had. Nobody would have been the wiser as I was the only one with access to all her bank accounts and the true amount in them.

My sister, brother in law and niece all trusted me to deal with the will honestly. I gave them full details of all financial transactions and they never asked me any awkward questions.

It's rare for someone to be taken to court for mishandling a will, but the High Court has just jailed Mark Totton after he failed to pass on £237,500 to his mother's grandson and granddaughter. He has also refused to explain what happened to the money and has given no indication it will be forthcoming.

He was jailed for contempt of court for not providing information about the estate and constantly flouting court orders to do so. He was also ordered to pay the legal bills for his niece and nephew, some £18,000.

He claimed he had suffered depression because of the row over his mother's will - a row caused by his own trickery!

I wonder what happened to the missing money. Is it just salted away in some secret account or has he spent it on wine, women and song?

Pic: Mark Totton

Null and void?

A Facebook friend has related the awful story of someone she knows who was cheated out of an inheritance because of a secret marriage.

Daphne Franks' mother, who had vascular dementia and terminal cancer, befriended a much younger man who secretly married her. When she died, he inherited everything because an English marriage* immediately cancels any previous wills. The daughter never knew about the marriage so was unable to stop it.

Which got me wondering on what grounds you can annul a marriage, as that is one possible solution.

An English marriage is automatically void if:

• you're closely related to the other person
• one or both of you were under 16
• one of you was already married or in a civil partnership

Your marriage is voidable** if:

• it wasn't sexually consummated (doesn't apply to same-sex couples)
• you didn't properly consent - for example you were forced into it
• you were unable to consent because of a lack of mental capacity
• your spouse had a sexually transmitted disease when you married
• your spouse was pregnant by someone else when you married
• your spouse is transitioning to the opposite sex

Surely there's a case for voiding the marriage, both on the grounds that her mother was forced into it, and because she lacked the mental capacity to understand what was happening. Apparently the registrar noticed she was acting strangely (she couldn't remember her age or house number) but was satisfied with the explanation that she was a bit forgetful.

Daphne Franks is also campaigning for a change in the law to stop a marriage cancelling a previous will.

But what a terrible end to her mother's life.

*but not in Scotland

**you have to apply to a divorce court for a declaration that the marriage is void

Pic: Daphne Franks and her mother Joan Blass

PS: I've been in touch with Daphne through Facebook and she says "Fabian Hamilton MP asked Boris Johnson what he was going to do about it in Prime Minister's Questions on 9 June 2021. Change is now on the way I'm pleased to say but don't know the details yet!"

Distasteful legacies

It's the custom to pass on your inheritance (if you're lucky enough to have one) to your offspring or other family members. Eyebrows are raised if you hand it all to the local cat shelter or the Teddy Bear Society (yes, there is one).

But not everyone approves of this practice. Actor Daniel Craig, who has a three year old daughter, a stepson and an adult daughter, says he won't leave his children a large inheritance because he finds the practice "distasteful".

He thinks it's better to "get rid of it or give it away before you go". He adds "Isn't there an old adage that if you die a rich person, you've failed?"

His estimated net worth is currently over $180 million, and he's due to pick up another $100 million from future film deals. That's quite a hefty sum to not inherit.

He may be one of those who think handing your children a huge windfall just makes them lazy and self-centred and they should have to make their own way in life, presumably just as their own parents did.

But what if your children are already grown-up and doing very nicely? Should you then deny them an inheritance because they don't need it?

And if your children are grown-up but not doing very well, should you still deny them an inheritance because you think they squander money left right and centre and should just get a grip on their life?

Or what if you just can't stand one of your children and think they're a right pain in the arse? Do they also get nothing? (as happened with my father, who left me precisely zilch)

Whatever the reason for disinheriting family members, I imagine resentment and bitterness are almost sure to follow.

Just trust me

It surprises me to realise there's no official system for monitoring the carrying-out of wills, for ensuring the right amount of money goes to the various recipients and there's no funny business going on, nobody siphoning off large sums they're not entitled to.

As the executor of my mum's will, it's entirely up to me to make sure the money is passed on to the three beneficiaries as it should be, and I'm not stealthily whisking the odd £10,000 into my own bank account. As far as I know nobody in authority is going to check I'm doing things properly.

My mum left a lot of money to her half-brother. None of the family have met him and nobody, including him, knew he had been left any money. We could in theory have ignored the legacy and divided it between the rest of us. Or we could have told him he'd only been left £100. Who would know? How would the long arm of the law ever find out? But of course we're all honest and he'll get what he's meant to get.

As far as I can see, an irregularity only comes to light if someone challenges the will and claims some sort of fraud. And they can only do that if they've seen the will. If they haven't seen it, they would have to contact the probate registry, which has custody of every original will.

It's also entirely up to me to declare the right value of my mum's estate to the tax authorities. I haven't been asked for documentary proof, so I could in theory have undervalued her estate by thousands of pounds, paid a lot less tax, and passed on more money to the beneficiaries. But again I'm honest so I told the truth. Perhaps the tax people make secret checks with the banks to confirm what I've told them?

All I can say is that a lot of people are simply trusting me to do things properly. Which is remarkable in a society where constant suspicion is widespread.

Battle of wills

I'm always fascinated by battles over wills and inherit-ance. Especially when the legal costs eat up the entire inherit-ance. And especially when nobody will budge an inch.

Peter Burgess's mother changed her will, cutting him out of it and leaving everything to his two sisters, Julia and Libby.

Libby and Peter disputed the new will, claiming their mother was suffering from dementia at the time. Julia insisted she had been quite rational.

When Mrs Burgess died in May 2009 she left around £200,000. But after nearly four years of legal quarrelling, leading to a six-day trial at the English Court of Appeal, that sum has been overtaken by the lawyers' bills.

The Court agreed that Peter Burgess should have been included in the will and that his mother didn't understand the changes she had made.

It astonishes me that people can dig their heels in so stubbornly, to the extent that families are driven apart and absurd amounts of money squandered in the name of pride, greed and self-righteousness.

Just a tiny bit of flexibility and common sense would have avoided the whole debacle and left them all with a handy windfall rather than a gaggle of lawyers looking forward to a fat profit.

Friends and relatives must have urged the three siblings countless times to settle their differences and bring the dispute to an end, but to no avail, and the lumbering machinery of the law took over.

The problem arose of course with the existence of two wills, and the question of which one was valid. Changing one's will is always a hazardous business, liable to just that sort of posthumous wrangling instead of a straightforward transfer of assets.

The strong suspicion is that Mrs Burgess was pressured into making the change, though it seems the court made no comment on that. But it was certainly a change with devastating consequences.

Pic: not the siblings in question

Sharing the spoils

Nasty disputes over wills are always riveting. And this is a juicy one. After an Australian millionaire left her ex-husband and three daughters just 90 pence each*, the daughters have gone to court to dispute the will.

They're claiming that 81 year old Valmai Roche was delusional when she drafted the will and falsely believed they had plotted to kill her own mother.

Ms Roche, from Adelaide, left the bulk of her A$3.5 million estate to a Catholic charity, the Knights of the Southern Cross. She claimed her daughters didn't need the money because they "have been adequately provided for".

One daughter, Fiona Roche, is indeed far from penniless, heading the hugely successful Roche Group of companies. The position of the other two daughters, Shauna Roche and Deborah Hamilton, has not been disclosed.

Ms Roche's mother died in a nursing home but it's not revealed exactly how she died or whether the circumstances were suspicious.

Further details will emerge when the case comes back to court in May.

Valmai Roche looks to me like a wise old bird who knew exactly what she was doing when she made her will, but who can tell?

I do wonder why Fiona Roche is contesting the will if she's already extremely well-off and doesn't need the money. Is it just greed? Some sort of grudge? A publicity stunt?

Was their mother really delusional or are the daughters just dragging her name through the mud and painting themselves as avaricious schemers?

Once again the invisible beneficiaries are the lawyers, who will no doubt make a tidy sum by the time the case draws to its venomous conclusion. There's no fury like three women scorned....

*A$1.49 or US$1.39. The will actually refers to "thirty pieces of silver", the price for which Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus. The reference to betrayal is intriguing.

Pic: Valmai Roche with a portrait of herself

PS: See the comment from someone who "knows the family very well" and says Valmai Roche made a later will leaving everything to her two granddaughters Alexandra and Airlie. The will was never finalised or signed, which is why her daughters have gone to court. The implication is that the daughters want the money to go to her granddaughters rather than to a charity.

A lover's dues

If someone you'd had a relationship with for 33 years died and left you nothing, would you feel hard done-by and sue their estate for what you thought you deserved?

Anne Mulholland did just that and was awarded £250,000 by Belfast High Court. Now she's gone into hiding because of the controversy she's stirred up.

She met sheep farmer Seamus Kane when she was 16 and he was in his early forties. A veil was drawn over the relationship because the locals disapproved of people "living in sin".

When her lover died in 2004 without a will the whole £800,000 estate passed to his siblings. She was offered only a "paltry" sum in recognition of her long-standing devotion to Mr Kane so felt compelled to take legal action.

Would I have done the same, I wonder? I suppose it would depend on how desperate I was for money, whether I could face the wrath of the relatives, whether I thought I deserved something in return for my commitment, whether my life was nearing its end anyway, and whether I had someone to support me emotionally.

It would certainly take a lot of courage to take on relatives who thought I deserved nothing and would fight me tooth-and-nail through the several years it might take to reach the courtroom. If I had nobody to lean on when the struggle got too much, I don't think I would have the nerve.

But if I'd given most of my life to someone else and wasn't equipped to earn my own living after they died, wouldn't a large bequest be only fair? Or should I just get off my arse and work out how to make a new life for myself?

I think on balance I'd prefer the dignity of shifting my arse to the embarrassment of holding out my begging bowl.

Battle of wills

How unseemly and unedifying it is when family members fight tooth and nail over a dead relative's will, disputing what it says and trying to grab a bit more money for themselves.

I see the latest family row is over the will left by Australian actor Heath Ledger. The will was written in 2003 before his partner Michelle and baby Matilda came on the scene.

Now everyone's squabbling over who should get what and how much (if any) should go to his new family. His father Kim has appealed for dignity at a time of grief.

I suppose the fewer relatives there are, and the more straightforward the will, the less trouble there's likely to be. And the more money there is at stake, and the more bizarre the will's provisions, the greater the prospect of a battle royal and insults flying thick and fast.

There are regular reports of huge sums of money being left to a pet cat or a faithful gardener or the preservation of endangered molluscs.

Relatives frequently argue that poor old Gladys wasn't of sound mind at the time and couldn't possibly have intended such absurd legacies. It was the influence of those strange pills the GP had prescribed, or the insidious charisma of some new acquaintance who wormed his way into her affections.

But at the end of the day, if that's what Gladys wanted, what right has anyone to dispute it and argue otherwise, just because they're greedy and feel cheated out of their rightful inheritance?

My family is very small, so hopefully there won't be any unsavoury quarrels when the next will gets opened. We'll just grab the money and run!!