Daughter cut out of mother's will for naming her child badly
A woman whose mother left her out of her half-million-pound estate because she
disliked the name of one of her grandchildren won a landmark legal victory
yesterday.
Melita Jackson, who died in 2004 at the age of 70, left her estate of £486,000
to animal charities, making no provision for Heather Ilott, her only child.
Three of the country’s most senior judges said Mrs Ilott, 50, should receive a
share of the will, in a decision which could lead to more people challenging
relatives’ bequests.
The Appeal Court in London was told that Mrs Jackson cut her daughter out of
her will because she did not agree with the name she gave to her fifth
child, Ellen, who is now 14.
Mrs Ilott, who lives in Great Munden, Herts, challenged the will and a county
court judge ruled that she should receive £50,000, but she went to the High
Court and asked for more.
Her claim was opposed by the Blue Cross, the RSPB and the RSPCA, the charities
that benefited from Mrs Jackson’s estate. The High Court ruled in favour of
them and held that Mrs Ilott was entitled to nothing.
Yesterday, the President of the Family Division, Sir Nicholas Wall, sitting
with Lady Justice Arden and Lady Justice Black, allowed Mrs Ilott’s appeal
against that decision.
The case will return to the High Court for a decision over how much Mrs Ilott
should receive, although the judges urged Mrs Ilott and the charities to try
to settle the case amicably without the need for a further hearing.
Sir Nicholas warned Mrs Ilott that she could incur significant legal costs. He
said: “I urge the parties to consider carefully whether a further hearing is
in anyone’s interests. No doubt substantial additional costs will be
incurred and compromise, now that the appellant has won her major point,
must be in the interests of everyone.”
Lady Justice Arden said she would “encourage the parties and their advisers in
the strongest terms to do all that is possible to dispose of these issues
without further litigation”.
Mrs Ilott saw little of her mother after she left home aged 17 to live with
her boyfriend. At a hearing in February, John Collins, representing Mrs
Ilott, told the judges that his client’s final breakdown with her mother was
over the naming of her daughter, Ellen, after Mrs Jackson’s sister-in-law,
whom she did not like.
“It is a picture of irrationality. It was not because she supported the
charities, but simply out of spite,” he said.
Mr Collins also said Mrs Ilott had five children ranging from 27 to 14 years
old and lived largely on benefits in a housing association home, with no
earning capacity and no pension.
“The whole purpose of the Inheritance Act was to safeguard close members of
the family against unreasonable provision from the deceased’s estate,” he
said.
Sir Nicholas said yesterday that there was no evidence that Mrs Jackson “had
any connection with the charities, or that she had any particular love of,
or interest in, either animals or birds”.
The charities said they were disappointed with the ruling, which they said
came despite a letter written by Mrs Jackson to accompany her will,
explaining her decision and instructing her executors to defend any attempt
by her daughter to contest it.
Kim Hamilton, chief executive of the Blue Cross, said: “We rely on the
generosity of our loyal supporters who leave us legacies to provide for many
thousands of animals in need.
“We are therefore deeply concerned about the impact of this judgment on our
future income as it opens the floodgates to legal challenges from any
aggrieved relative who, for whatever reason, has been left out of someone’s
will.”
David Bowles, the RSPCA’s director of communications, said: “Legacy income
pays for one out of every two animals we save and without it, much of our
work would not be possible. We are immensely grateful for the kindness of
people like Mrs Jackson.”
No comments:
Post a Comment