Expectations not meeting reality: the story of the Earl of Yarmouth

As solicitors who specialise in contentious trusts and probate disputes, we understand the complexities and emotional challenges that arise in disputes that relate to a dashed expectation of inheriting. Whilst the specific details of the recent case reported by the BBC are unavailable (as the judgment of Master Brightwell is yet to be handed down following the trial), the case involving the Trust largely comprising Ragley Hall in Warwickshire between the Earl of Yarmouth and the Trustees is interesting, not least because it is essentially an inheritance dispute prior to death!

Background

The BBC has reported that a dispute arose between the Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford and their son the Earl of Yarmouth over his marriage to Kelsey Wells. The report continues that (as is typical in disputes involving deceased estates) in the lead up to and the period after the marriage took place inflammatory correspondence was sent between the Earl, the Earl’s wife, and his parents, culminating in an accusation that Lord Hertford had lost capacity.

The Earl had held an expectation that he would take over from his father as the occupant of Ragley Hall upon him turning 30 years old. This expectation was not met as a result of Lord Hertford’s claims that he felt his son had not achieved anything with his life and, accordingly, was not ready to take over the mantle. The Earl, therefore, applied to the High Court to remove the Trustees.

Whilst this case has all the hallmarks of a dispute involving a deceased estate, as stated above, Lord Hertford is very much alive. Whilst the terms of the Trust relating to the Ragley Estate are not yet publicly available, we would expect such a trust to be in the form of a discretionary trust, which provides the Trustees with an exceptionally broad discretion as to how and when to distribute to beneficiaries and the beneficiaries of the Trust being limited to direct descendants of Marquess and Marchioness of Hertford.

The backdrop to this dispute may well be an underlying dispute between parents and their son, but the application itself is made by the Earl with a view to removing the Trustees, alleging that they have essentially taken the side of his parents and that they were wrong to do so.

Whilst the writer is not privy to all of the facts of the case, and accordingly what follows is a very high-level opinion, an outcome different from what is stated below would be very surprising indeed. The writer’s prediction is that the Earl’s application is likely to fail. The writer says this because:

The other issue that the Earl faces is that, even if he does succeed and new Trustees are appointed, there is no guarantee that the new Trustees will make a different decision. If the new Trustees simply acquiesced to the Earl’s desired outcome, they too could leave themselves open to criticism.

With the above in mind, it is difficult to see how the Earl will achieve his desired outcome from this case, but the writer will comment further when the judgment is issued.