A ‘Fight To The Death’…

A common theme of disputes involving deceased estates is that they tend to be emotive. This is usually because the warring parties tend to be close relatives, in many cases siblings.

A case recently dealt with by the Courts does not involve siblings but rather a dispute between the deceased’s sister (Diane Stoner) and her niece (Karen Reeve) on the one side, and the brother (Terry Crook) of the deceased and his two sons (Malcolm and Andrew Crook) on the other. Notwithstanding this position and the fact that neither party could rightfully argue a moral right to any of the spoils of the estate as children of the deceased, the Judge dealing with the case has branded this dispute as a ‘fight to the death’.

Stoner & Reeve v Crook, Crook & Crook (2020)

Shirley Guymer during her lifetime had no children. She was married but her husband pre-deceased her by some years. She had a total of 11 nieces and nephews and after her husband’s death in 2014, she created a Will leaving 95% of her estate to those nieces and nephews in equal shares. Mrs Guymer died in 2016 following a battle with terminal cancer.

After Mrs Guymer’s death, her brother, Mr Crook, sought to rely on a document purporting to be a new Will, prepared some two months before Mrs Guymer’s death, leaving the vast majority of the estate to Mr Crook and his two sons. Only £180,000 of the £825,000 estate was left to the other nine nieces and nephews.

Diane Stoner and her niece, Karen, challenged the 2016 Will claiming that the Will had been prepared following coercion/undue influence of the deceased following the deceased being forced to sign the 2016 Will in a hospital waiting room. Mr Crook’s argument in response was that the property forming the substantial part of the estate had previously belonged to him and he had gifted it to the deceased in 1972. He claimed that the deceased wished to pass it back to him as a result. This was countered by the Claimants by evidence that the deceased had been overheard on a number of occasions stating that:

‘Terry is not having my land’.

It appears that the 2016 Will was prepared following testimony from the deceased’s GP no doubt seeking to follow the ‘Golden Rule’.

Mr Sidoli, acting for the Claimants, commented:

Carol Davies, acting for the Defendants, said:

The comments by each parties’ barristers would not be out of place in many a contentious probate dispute. Notwithstanding the Judge’s comments that this was a ‘fight to the death’ and the fact that he was forced to endure six days of evidence, it appears that Mr Crook and his sons did not share the same view as conveyed by their barrister’s comments above, as this dispute was resolved by agreement. It was settled on the basis that the 2016 Will was invalid and the earlier Will should stand.

A six day trial in any case is considered to be a substantial trial and the costs on both sides in this case are almost certainly likely to be in excess of six figures. Whilst the precise terms of the settlement are not known, this is likely to have been a very costly defeat for Mr Crook and his sons indeed as a result.

Comment

The case of Stoner & Reeve v Crook, Crook & Crook highlights that each case turns on its own facts and more importantly that trials are notoriously difficult to forecast.

It is most likely that Mr Crook and his sons were fairly confident going into the trial, which is not surprising given that the primary burden of proof in this case would have rested with the Claimants going into the trial. Clearly six days of evidence did not go as well as Mr Crook and his sons could have hoped. This is predominantly the reason why our Inheritance Disputes team always consider settlement in disputes such as this at every stage of the case and consider alternative means of resolving disputes, such as mediation.