Re Gladys Meek; Jones v Parkin & ors [2014] EWCOP 1

Analysis

Mr Jones, the property and affairs deputy for Gladys Meek, asked for the court to authorise a statutory will leaving everything between National Trust for Scotland and a charity connected with the Christadelphian Church. He also asked for an order calling in the £275,000 security bond against her two former deputies, Mrs Miller and Mrs Johnson, and a direction as to whether he should refer the conduct of the two former deputies to the police.

Mrs Meek was born in 1919, widowed in 1961 and predeceased by her only child Barbara in 2010. Both her husband and Barbara died intestate and she inherited their entire estates. Mrs Meek had never made a will and under the intestacy rules her niece Margaret Parkin and great nephew Jason Parkin would share her entire estate. Mrs Meeks had been close to Mrs Parkin until a fallout over the putting down of a dog many years ago, after which they did not speak. Jason had had no contact with Mrs Meek for many years.

Following Barbara’s death two of her late husband’s relatives, Mrs Johnson (a great niece) and Mrs Miller (a niece), were appointed her deputies. They quickly made a number of extravagant gifts (totalling £231,000) and claimed expenses of £46,000 (which included a car for each of them). In October 2011 Mrs Johnson and Mrs Miller applied for retrospective ratification of these spends. On 22 April 2013 Senior Judge Lush ratified charitable gifts of £57,000 and gifts to everyone else of £16,000 in total, leaving them personally liable to Mrs Meek’s estate in the sums of £204,500.

By the time of the hearing Mrs Johnson and Mrs Miller acknowledged they owed Mrs Meek £250,000. They suggested they should be given the opportunity to repay £125,000 within three months with the rest only being called in during her lifetime if she needed any further sums to make up the £25,000 annual shortfall of income over expenditure.

Mrs Johnson and Mrs Miller suggested they should be entitled to 50% of the estate and therefore the remaining £125,000 owed would be satisfied out of their presumptive entitlements under the statutory will. They acknowledged that it would be in Mrs Meek’s best interests to call in the bond but it was not necessary and calling it in would place them under additional stress.

The Official Solicitor felt there should be a statutory will giving personal chattels to Susan Grimshaw (a long-time friend of Barbara) or failing that to her daughter Rachel Grimshaw. Residue should be divided into eight parts – two parts to Rachel, two parts to Christadelphian Care Homes, two parts to National Trust for Scotland and one part each to the RSPB and Ashbourne Animal Welfare. The Official Solicitor wanted the bond called in.

The Grimshaws made no representations to the court.

Jason Parkin suggested a statutory will leaving 25% to him, 25% to Mrs Parkin and 50% to charity.

Mrs Parkin also supported a statutory will but felt she should still be left 50% of the estate. She suggested that the court should not assume that Gladys and Barbara had made anything other than a deliberate decision not to make wills.

Shortly after the hearing but after the signing of the statutory will Mrs Meek died.

Held (ordering the execution of a statutory will and the calling in of the bond):

1. 1) The concept of being remembered as ‘having done the right thing’ still has relevancy even if the right thing for the testator has to be done for the testator via a statutory will. ‘The right thing’ is to be judged from the perspective not of any relatives or friends who may be competing for a share of testamentary bounty, but rather from the perspective of the well-informed and disinterested, objective bystander. ‘The right thing’ is to be judged by reference to the standard of P and not by what a reasonable incapacitated person might be thought to think.
2. 2) It may be helpful to prepare a table of arguments for and against both the making of a statutory will and the identification of the various beneficiaries and how much should pass to each of them. This is a value judgement which involves weighing various factors against each other before deciding where the balance falls.
3. 3) There is no statutory guidance about when the security bond should be called in. The ‘best interests’ principle does apply to the decision as to whether to call it in.
4. 4) Both former deputies have demonstrated a complete lack of insight and remorse. Mrs Meek would have been totally horrified at their behaviour.
5. 5) It is a factor of magnetic importance that Mrs Meek’s estate increased from £200,000 to £500,000 on Barbara’s death and by that time she lacked testamentary capacity.
6. 6) In favour of the intestacy beneficiaries is that she cannot remember the fallout about the dog, she has never been particularly charitable and the former deputies have behaved extremely badly. However none of these factors outweigh the fallout over the dog and the subsequent estrangement from Mrs Parkin and the complete lack of contact with Jason. It is not in Mrs Meek’s best interest to benefit the intestacy beneficiaries.
7. 7) In the former deputies’ favour is the clear evidence that Mrs Meek loves them. But for their misconduct they would have been obvious people to benefit from her estate.
8. 8) Barbara’s own wishes and feelings toward the Grimshaws are relevant because Mrs Meek would have taken them into account. The Grimshaws are the only people to have any real continuing claim on the bounty of Mrs Meek. They are worthy of a share in her estate and given the absence of any other worthy individual claimant Rachel shall have 25% of the estate. The balance of the estate will be divided as follows: two parts to Christadelphian Care Homes, two parts to National Trust for Scotland and one part each to the RSPB and Ashbourne Animal Welfare.
9. 9) The bond must be called in to redress the wrongdoing on the part of the deputies. The present means of the former deputies is a factor which should carry very little weight in deciding whether to call in the bond. The alternative would be the present deputy to take costly proceedings at Mrs Meek’s expense to recover the monies owed.
10. 10) The full amount of the bond (£275,000) should be called in although the former deputies have acknowledged that they owe £250,000 because the balance of £25,000 only goes some way to cover the legal expenditure their behaviour has caused.
11. 11) It is not in Mrs Meek’s best interests for the former deputies to be reported to the police. The police would wish to contact the deputy and his further costs would need to come from her estate. There is also a risk that the former deputies would be advised to cease any contact with Mrs Meek while the police investigate.
12. 12) There might also be an approach by the police or social services to Mrs Meek and again this is not in her best interest. If the former deputies have to fund their defence this would be to her detriment as it might divert resources away from her care.
13. 13) Following the death of Mrs Meek the publication and reporting of the unanonymised text of this judgment is ordered. It is in the public interest for those who have abused the trust placed in them to be exposed to the full glare of publicity and the knowledge of this risk may serve to deter others from doing the same.

JUDGMENT HHJ HODGE QC: [1] This is my extemporary judgment in the matter of Gladys Meek, Court of Protection case number 11843118. This extemporary judgment is a sequel to, and should be read in conjunction with, an earlier decision of Senior Judge Lush handed down on 22 April 2013 and which is reported under the …

Continue reading "Re Gladys Meek; Jones v Parkin & ors [2014] EWCOP 1"