In the case of Kunicki and Kunicki v Hayward [2016] EWHC 3199 (Ch), renowned harpist Jack Hayward suspected that he might be triggering a family dispute and that his son would be angry with him when he left the lion’s share of his £1.3 million fortune to his daughter, Fiona Kunicki.
Mr Hayward’s suspicions proved correct when his son Iain Hayward challenged his late father’s will, accusing Fiona of fraud and poisoning their father’s mind against him.
Judge Jonathan Klein ruled however that the late harpist knew exactly what he was doing when he signed the will.
The judge further commented that Iain was “not always a frank witness”, and his father had been concerned about his son’s spending habits during his lifetime.
Jack Hayward, who ran an insurance company in Berkshire as well as playing the harp professionally, executed his last will and testament on 22nd August 2013, five months before his death from cancer aged 81 on 9th January 2014.
Under the terms of the deceased’s last will and testament, Iain received his father’s “prized” 19th century harp under a non-binding “letter of wishes” attached to the document. Iain maintained that the harp, the work of pioneering French instrument maker Sébastien Érard, was worth no more than £3,000 compared to his sister’s inheritance from their late father’s estate worth approximately £500,000.
Iain also received the remains of his father’s business – much of which he owned already – and a few pictures and manuscripts that the late musician treasured.
The rest of the deceased’s fortune was split 50/50 between Fiona and his five grand-daughters, including Iain’s two daughters, Yasmin and Sarah.
Iain claimed that his father was behaving “erratically and unreasonably” in the months before he died, was incapable of making a valid will and did not know and understand the contents of the document he signed.
Iain also accused his sister of “fraudulent calumny” by filling their father’s ears with untrue claims that he was wasteful with money.
The judge rejected claims that Fiona had painted Iain to their father as a ‘dishonest’ man ‘who could not be trusted’. The judge further held that the will had been properly executed, having come to the conclusion that the deceased was capable when he gave his solicitor instructions for both the drafting of and execution of the 2013 will.
The judge went on to say that the deceased did not suffer from a mental impairment which made him incapable of understanding the extent of his estate or knowing and understanding the contents of the will he signed.
The judge based his findings on capacity on the following elements:
- The 2013 will was rational on its face and properly executed;
- The 2013 will was prepared by a solicitor who was alive to questions of capacity, who considered whether Mr Hayward had capacity and who was satisfied that he did have;
- All the witnesses of fact save for Iain were consistent in their evidence that the deceased had capacity;
- Iain did not point to anything specific which suggested that Mr Hayward was incapable;
- A leading expert on mental capacity, Professor Jacoby, expressed the opinion that Mr Hayward had capacity.
As for Iain’s claim about fraudulent calumny, the judge also dismissed this claim as it was based in part on the assertion by Iain that Fiona had represented to her late father that Iain had behaved dishonestly in dealing with their late mother’s estate. The judge found that Iain’s administration of or other dealings with the late Mrs Hayward’s estate was not a factor in Mr Hayward’s decision to make the 2013 will.
Claims Iain and Fiona had reached a binding agreement that they would split their father’s estate between them were also rejected.
For more information, please contact us or call 0800 024 1976.