A Will forgery claim has recently made the news again.
Watts v Watts [2014]
Background
In the case of Watts v Watts, Valerie Watts died on 26 February 2011 aged 71 in a hospice. She was survived by her two adopted non-sibling adult children, Christine Watts and Gary Watts.
Valerie had made a Will in 1999 leaving her entire estate to her two children equally. Gary subsequently claimed Valerie signed a Will dated 12 January 2011 written out by hand by Valerie’s sister, Yvonne, using a Will DIY kit at her bedside.
The witnesses were Yvonne and Jackie Brown (Nurse Brown), a Staff Nurse at the hospice. The 2011 Will left Valerie’s Estate of £200,000 to Gary and disinherited Christine, who then challenged the 2011 Will and made a claim for financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act).
Gary and Christine clearly did not get on and Gary said the reason for the change in the 2011 Will was that he was far closer to Valerie and Christine was not. He visited her every day in hospital but Christine, who lived some distance away, rarely did.
Christine obtained expert evidence in relation to Valerie’s signature because the Court had to consider if she was well enough to sign given her failing health. The evidence of the witnesses in this scenario was crucial and it took some time to track down Nurse Brown.
Court proceedings
At trial Gary admitted misleading Nurse Brown as to the nature of the document she was witnessing. Also, Nurse Brown said she not see Valerie sign, contrary to the long established and strict rules concerning the signing and witnessing of a Will.
Gary also defended Christine’s 1975 Act claim, saying she was lazy and waiting for her inheritance to ease her financial status which was due to her unemployment.
Judge Catherine Newman QC found in favour of Christine and determined Gary had forged Valerie’s signature. This meant the 2011 Will was invalid and the Estate would be divided in accordance with the 1999 Will.
The judge said that even if the 2011 Will was valid, she would have awarded half the Estate to Christine via her 1975 Act. The judge commented on Christine’s failure to work and the fact Gary was far closer to Valerie but noted Christine’s health was poor.
Christine’s 1975 Act claim is also another example of a non-dependant adult child seeking provision from their parent’s Estate. There has undoubtedly been a gradual shift over the past few decades for adult children to make a successful 1975 Act claim easier, see Ilott v Mitson [2015] but only if the particular circumstances permit it.
Postscript
In Watts v Watts [2015], Gary went back to the Court of Appeal in November 2015 seeking to have the judgment set aside on the basis the judge should not have heard the case.
Gary believed there were grounds for the appearance of bias, as the judge was working closely with Christine’s barrister in an entirely unconnected but long running matter at the time of the trial.
The Court of Appeal found there were no grounds to set aside the judgment. So Gary would now have to pay Christine’s costs for the initial claim and the appeal. Gary is considering an application for permission to take the claim to the Supreme Court.
Costs
Finally, a word about costs. This was an Estate of £200,000 and with hindsight, Gary would have received half his Estate if he accepted early on the 2011 Will was invalid. But that is no longer the case because Christine’s costs are a reported eye watering £342,000!
How Nelsons can help
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our Dispute Resolution team, specialising in inheritance dispute claims.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, please contact Kevin or another member of our expert team in Derby, Leicester or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.