Martyn Trenerry

I represented three siblings who were entitled to the benefit of their late father's estate following a disagreement as to extent of their then estranged brothers interest. The brother had persuaded their father to sell his property to purchase a replacement which was then held jointly with between the father and the brother. On the father's death the brother fraudulently procured the transfer of that property into his sole name, thereby disinheriting my three clients.

The property was worth some £375,000. This is a case where my clients believed the brother had exercised undue influence over their late father.  Matters were complicated by the fact that the estranged brother then died. On the death of the brother the entirety of his estate, which included property in dispute, was left to a national charity.

This was a case where issues of undue influence and fraud were raised. Following my evaluation of the matter it was agreed that there would be a round table meeting. A settlement was agreed with the charity without the need to pursue court proceedings.

The matter concluded by way of a deed of variation so that the property fell entirely within the estate of my clients’ late father. My clients made a compensatory payment to the national charity to represent the sum it would have received but for the fraud of the brother. This is a matter where all parties were keen to avoid litigation, where early discussion facilitated an amicable resolution.

I acted for my client as executor of her late mother's estate. A claim was brought by her brother who claimed that the will was invalid on the basis that the mother lacked capacity to execute the will.

The background of the matter was that my client  had assisted her parents to buy their former council house under the "Right to buy scheme" that purchase was only possible because she was able to fund the mortgage installments and had  made a capital payment. My client resided in the home for a number of years until she married.  Her contribution to the purchase price of the property was reflected in her late mother's will which directed that she have a 100% share in the estate. The will specifically excluded  any provision for my client's brother who then sought to challenge the will on the basis that their late mother did not have capacity to execute the will.

The property had been held on trust for the deceased for her life to provide her somewhere to live rent free.  On his mother's death the brother sought to argue property should be treated as part of  the estate and pass in accordance with the intestacy rules.

I undertook a detailed analysis of the deceased’s capacity to make a lifetime gift. This required a detailed review of the medical evidence. This showed that the deceased had some memory problems, but that these problems only developed into a cognitive disorder after  the execution of the will and trust deed.

The challenge to the validity failed on the ground that the deceased had sufficient capacity and had not been subject to undue influence.

I was recently consulted by my client to advise with regard to claim for financial provision under the terms of the Inheritance (Provision For Family Dependants) Act 1975. My client had maintained a continuous and loving relationship with the deceased for more than 20 years prior to his death. A claim was made on the basis that she was entitled as a cohabitee of the deceased despite the fact that they have maintained a platonic relationship for many years. In this case the Intestacy Rules applied as the deceased’s home-made will was invalid for want of execution. The deceased's estate of some £400,000 passed to his two adult children: there was no provision made for my client.

This case raised a number of unusual features to determine whether she was an eligible claimant. The nature of their relationship was the deciding factor. This required extraneous evidence to demonstrate that the relationship was more than companionship.

I was able to show that my client was eligible to make a claim. To determine the extent of financial dependency I undertook an exercise akin to a financial provision arising on a divorce situation. A significant lump sum payment totalling some 40% of value statement was paid to my client.

I acted for two sisters in their capacity as personal representatives of their late mother's estate. The defendant’s claim was brought by the deceased's partner claiming he had a beneficial interest in a property based on a constructive trust and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. There was a parallel claim for financial provision.

The basis of the ex-partner's claim was his contention that he and the deceased had agreed that they would extend and improve the deceased’s property with a view to selling the same and purchasing a new property in the joint names. The ex-partner claimed that there had been a "pooling" of resources as well as various gifts to the deceased or her business and that he had worked within the deceased business without charge. In addition it was claimed that there had been a contribution to general outgoings. The ex-partner claimed he had contributed approximately £150,000 worth of expense to carrying out works to the property.

The claim was defended on the basis that there was never any agreement about the deceased sharing any equity and that any monies that the claimant could prove were paid to the deceased were personal loans and were duly repaid by her.

Court proceedings were commenced. The matter settled at the discovery stage. The claimant was unable to provide documents in support of his claim following an application to the court for specific disclosure of documents.

The estate was valued at £1.37 million. The claimant's claim sought recovery of £450,000. It was agreed that the outstanding loans would be repaid and the contribution made towards the claimant's costs the total claim settled at £60,000. My clients took an economic view as the claimant was impecunious. I  had estimated that the cost to proceed to the would be in the region of £70,000 is likely that the claimant would have recovered  in the region of £45,000-£50,000 in any event.

The claim for financial provision under the 1975 act was abandoned.