Mr L, who lives in the West Midlands, contacted Joseph Martin to assist him in defending a contentious probate claim brought by his sister, Mrs C, seeking to challenge the validity of their father's will.
Mr L was the appointed executor and trustee of his father's estate and the sole residuary beneficiary. Mrs C was a beneficiary of a small pecuniary legacy (of some £15,000), but she considered this unfair and sought to challenge the will.
The basis of Mrs C's challenge was separated into the following heads of claim:
- Mrs C argued that her father did not have the requisite mental capacity to execute the will in accordance with the legal principles established by Banks v Goodfellow.
- Mrs C also argued that Mr L had exerted undue influence over his father, although Mrs C did not provide much particularity or evidence to support such an accusation.
It was really important to Mr L to defend Mrs C's challenge because, had Mrs C been successful in her claim to invalidate the will, the laws of intestacy would have applied, and the entire estate would have been split equally between Mrs C and Mr L. Mr L, therefore, stood to lose some £150,000 if Mrs C won her case.
Joseph acted decisively in his advice and recommended that the deceased's medical records and the file from the solicitors instructed to prepare his will be sought.
Joseph promptly obtained the documents and provided pragmatic and clear advice to Mr L on his legal position in response to the claim. The medical evidence obtained did not contain any references to impairment of the deceased's mind and was crucial to quashing Mrs C's claims in that regard.
Similarly, Joseph was able to examine the will file closely to prove that the principles established by Banks v Goodfellow were, in fact, met. Joseph prepared a robust response to the letter of claim detailing the relevant law and, in turn, why Mrs C's threatened claim was misguided.
Joseph highlighted the risks to Mrs C of continuing with her flawed claim and made the appropriate submissions regarding the recovery of legal fees against her.
Mrs C immediately withdrew her claim, having been duly informed of its precarious and tenuous nature. Mr L was then able to progress the administration of his father's estate in a timely fashion, having successfully defended what was deemed to be Mrs C's opportunistic challenge.
"I am particularly proud of this case because we were able to dispose of the threatened claim at minimal cost, delay and distress to Mr L. The case illustrates the importance of obtaining the relevant evidence promptly so that you are able to put your best foot forward in opposing tenuous claims".
Joseph Martin
Contentious Probate Solicitor
