Chris John died suddenly at the age of 47, leaving a property portfolio and sports cars – but no will. His girlfriend Gillian Clemo used a forged will to try to ensure she could stay in the luxury home the couple had shared, the jury was told. His former wife Helen John, 48, who had split from her husband ‘acrimoniously’ after his affair with Clemo, then altered that will after discovering that their divorce had never been officially finalised, it was said.

The alleged fraud and counter fraud began after Mr John, who once sold a property to singer Charlotte Church, died of a brain haemorrhage. There was no sign of a will deciding how his estate should be divided. Clemo, 57, is said to have wanted Mr John’s sisters to be appointed as executors, so she would be allowed to continue living in the Cardiff house. John Philpotts, prosecuting, told Newport Crown Court: ‘When no will was discovered there developed a dispute as to who should administrate the estate. On the one hand were the two sisters and on the other hand Helen John. No agreement could be reached.’

The situation took a ‘dramatic turn’ when it was found that no decree absolute to the divorce had been lodged with the courts, even though proceedings had begun in 2001. Mr Philpotts said this meant that technically Mrs John was still married to her husband, and had a legal claim to his fortune. ‘Mrs Clemo collapsed on the floor on hearing the news,’ he said.

Three days later, however, Clemo claimed she had found a will naming Mr John’s sister Melissa Fenton as the executor and the guardian of his 13-year-old daughter. Mr Philpotts said: ‘Mrs Clemo used that document, which we say was a forgery, to try to bring about the appointment of Melissa as executor of the estate. She administered the estate and some property was sold. ‘Mrs Clemo wanted the sisters to be executors so she would be allowed to stay in the house.’

The court heard Clemo then swore an affidavit that the will, which left the estate to Mr John’s daughter when she reached 27, was real and that she had witnessed it. But Mr Philpotts said handwriting experts decided it was not Mr John who had signed the will. ‘In addition there was the fact that Mr John’s daughter’s name was spelled wrongly,’ he said. Talking about the will, Mrs John told the court: ‘I was shown a copy. It was on A4 white paper with a couple of lines written on it. It immediately struck me that it didn’t look like my husband’s signature.’

Mrs John admitted forging a modification to the will, although details were not given in court. She said she had been worried about her daughter’s inheritance, said to be worth millions. The jury heard she had been given a formal caution by police instead of being taken to court. Clemo denies using a forged will under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act. The trial continues.

Source: The Daily Mail 15th November 2010

Around 62% of people admitted they did not have a will, rising to 70% among people who had children aged under 18, according to professional advice website Unbiased.co.uk. The group warned that this could leave many children vulnerable, as under current laws, children who are not named in a will are only entitled to an inheritance if there is no surviving spouse or an estate is worth more than £250,000.

If people die without a will, meaning they are intestate, their assets are divided up in a strict order, and if no-one comes forward to claim their estate it goes to the crown. Not having a will could also lead to inheritance tax being due before an estate is released, meaning family members may have to take out a loan to pay the tax bill in order to get the assets they are due.The high number of people without a will is despite the fact that 92% of those questioned said they had a clear idea of how they wanted their assets to be divided up when they died.

More than half of people without a will said they would like to leave some assets to their children, and 69% said they would like to leave something to another relative. Three-quarters of people who were married said they wanted to leave everything to their spouse, but under the current intestate rules they would receive only the first £250,000 automatically.

Four out of 10 people who were not married said they would like to leave their assets to their partner, but unmarried couples have no right to an inheritance if there is no will in place.Unsurprisingly, young people were the least likely to have written a will with 87% of under 35s not having one. But 36% of people aged over 55 still did not have a will in place.Apathy was the main reason people gave for not having a will, with 36% saying they had not got around to writing one, while 18% said they did not think they had anything to leave behind and 8% admitted it had simply not occurred to them to get one.

One in 10 people said they were worried about the costs involved, despite the fact that making a will costs only around £120 for someone who is single and £200 for a couple. Karen Barrett, chief executive of Unbiased.co.uk, said: ‘Thinking about the possibility of something bad happening to you is never an easy topic but nevertheless, it is hugely important. ‘Our research clearly shows that the nation is gripped by wills apathy, leaving a large proportion of spouses, partners and children unprotected should anything happen to a partner or parent.’ Opinium Research questioned 2,017 people during September.

Source – Daily Mail 23rd October 2010

Eccentric siblings Ethel Willson and Mabel Cook, described as like ‘peas in a pod’, drew up a joint will in 1991 leaving their possessions to their family and friends.

Mrs Cook died aged 83 in 1995, but in 2006 her younger sister dramatically changed the will, just two months before her own death aged 92, leaving all but £10,000 of the estate to their hairdresser Jill Fraser.

Now a High Court judge has ruled that because the sisters had a mutual agreement before Mrs Cook died, the original will should be honoured.

The mutual wills drawn up in 1991 carved up the childless sisters’ wealth between 15 of their closest family, godchildren and friends, not including Mrs Fraser, pictured.

Under the revised will in September 2006, Mrs Fraser inherited all of the estate, save for a £10,000 legacy bequeathed to Mrs Willson’s carer.

Although frail, former legal secretary Mrs Willson was judged to have had the mental capacity to make a valid will at the time.

The sisters’ family and friends, who would have been left with nothing, mounted a costly legal battle against Mrs Fraser, arguing that the first will should stand.

The sisters set up home together in Stoneleigh, near Epsom, Surrey, in the late 1980s after both lost their husbands in the 1970s.

The hairdresser claimed she was entitled to the legacy because she was the only person to visit Mrs Willson in her dying days in hospital. But the family accused her of failing to inform them that she had been admitted to hospital. Yesterday, at the London hearing, Judge Jonathan Gaunt, QC, ruled that the ‘mirror wills’ the sisters signed in 1991 remained binding even after Mrs Cook’s death. It is one of only a small handful of cases in which the ‘doctrine of mutual wills’ has been applied.

The ruling means travelling hairdresser Mrs Fraser, 72, will now have to pay back what she can in cash and a charge will be put against her home, which she bought for £362,500 in July last year, using some of the legacy, for the balance.

Referring to the sisters’ family and friends, many of whom live in Malvern, Worcestershire, who will now inherit the money as ‘very kind, decent people’, the judge said that they have no plans to enforce the charge over Mrs Fraser’s home while she still lives there. He added that he was ‘very pleased’ to hear that the 1991 beneficiaries have no intention of trying to claw back the £10,000 legacy to Mrs Willson’s carer, who was ‘ particularly good to her’.

Source – Daily Mail 13th August 2010

As part of this, judges assume that the person in question would want to be remembered fondly by their family and as having “done the right thing in their will”. This means that estates are often disposed of in favour of friends or relatives, under “statutory wills”, even if they have only recently come into the life of a vulnerable person. Under English law, people have long had the right to make “eccentric” wills and do not have to explain why, for instance, they chose to disinherit their children. But courts can make a “statutory will” when someone lacks capacity to do so, usually if they never made one or if there has been a significant change in their family or fortune since they made a valid will but they can no longer make a new one.

The process is now carried out by the Court of Protection, which also has the power to decide on controversial medical treatment and almost always sits behind closed doors. Speaking at a conference on the effects of Britain’s ageing population on law, mental health and property, Mr Hewitt said: “People think that everybody has the right to inherit their parents’ wealth and that is not where this jurisdiction was a few decades ago.”

He agreed that recent cases set out principles on how the new law should be applied. But he went on: “What I think is missing is a much clearer statement that deters the nephew who ‘rocks up’ late into the day, inveigles his way into auntie’s affairs.

“Auntie, when she had capacity, chose who to leave her money to, she made a will, she no longer has capacity, she is now vulnerable. It’s a classic situation that the court historically was so keen to ensure by introducing strict rules about how wills are executed that those wishes could not be subverted.

“Best interests, I think, puts huge pressure on those who have responsibility to P [the person whose will is being decided upon] to agree that it is in fact in her best interests to reverse her previous testamentary wishes and bring in ‘Johnny-come-lately’, the nephew who is now visiting every week because he can see that auntie has rather a lot of money and he would like some.”

In previous decades, judges took what was known as a “substituted judgement” in which they put themselves in the shoes of the incapacitated person and tried to work out how they would want their goods divided.

But under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which came into effect in October 2007, the Court of Protection must decide what would be in the person’s “best interests”. This involves considering their wishes and feelings, and senior judges have decided this includes how they would want to be remembered by their family.

Mr Justice Lewinson said in one important case: “For many people it is in their best interests that they be remembered with affection by their family and as having done ‘the right thing’ by their will.” Lord Justice Munby, speaking at the Withers conference on Tuesday, agreed with that approach, saying that “we have an interest in being remembered as having done the ‘right thing’, either in life or, post mortem, by will”.

Source – Telegraph By Martin Beckford 10 Jun 2010

An unassuming pensioner who spent much of her life browsing at Scotland’s National Museum has surprised officials by leaving the institution £2m in her will. Adele Stewart, a spinster who lived a modest life in a terrace house in Edinburgh, died aged 79 in 2006.

However, it emerged over the weekend that Miss Stewart left nearly all of her estate to the museum, which is the single biggest bequest it has received since it was established almost 150 years ago. During her life Miss Stewart, who was born to Scottish parents in the Far East, was very private and no-one was aware of the fortune which she had inherited from her father.

Neighbours remember her walking the streets around her home with a plastic bag picking up litter, which annoyed her greatly. She was an active member of her church in the Murrayfield area of Edinburgh but the National Museum of Scotland was her greatest love. Dr Gordon Rintoul, director of the museum, said: “Adele Stewart was a great supporter of our work and aspirations and we are honoured and touched that she has remembered us in this way. “She was a proud Scot who had travelled the world, took a deep interest in cultural and community activities and was deeply connected to Edinburgh and its institutions.”

The National Museum of Scotland is currently engaged in a £46.4m overhaul of the Chambers Street building. Part of the project involves the creation of a World Cultures gallery, which will now be named after Miss Stewart. Dr Rintoul said: “We will recognise her contribution by naming in her honour the new World Cultures galleries being created as part of the Royal Museum Project.”

Miss Stewart was born in 1923. Her father, William Gordon Stewart, was an engineer in Malaya, but he later moved to Singapore. Miss Stewart and her father returned to a house in Coltbridge Terrace, Edinburgh, in the 1960s.It is thought her mother died when Miss Stewart was young. Canon Tim Morris, of the Church of the Good Shepherd in Murrayfield, said: “She was one of those lovely ladies who people always liked talking with because you never came away without learning something interesting about life or literature. “She was a picture of old-fashioned gentility.”

By CALUM MacDONALD – The Herald