Wright v Waters & anr [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch)

Analysis

The claimant was Patricia Wright who made a claim against the estate of her mother Mary Waters. Mrs Waters died on 29 December 2010 leaving an estate worth £138,000.

Mrs Waters had two children – Patricia and David. Patricia (a widow) has one child Victoria and two grandchildren. Patricia suffers from numerous medical conditions and is wheelchair bound. Her outgoings exceed her income.

David married Susan and has four children.

Mrs Waters made a will in January 2009 leaving legacies of £5000 to each of David’s children, £7,000 between her sister-in-law and a niece and her residuary estate to David and Susan. She left nothing to Patricia or her issue.

Patricia made two claims against the estate – a proprietary estoppel claim based on promises in relation to family shops and a Spanish villa, and an Inheritance Act claim.

Mr and Mrs Waters owned a sweet shop in Preston, bought when Patricia was 18 and engaged. Patricia stated that she worked every weekend and most evenings and holidays in the shop for no wage. Even after moving 18 miles away and having Victoria she still worked in the shop twice a week.

In 1975 a second shop was bought that Patricia ran for three years. Her family lived above the shop rent free and Patricia stated that she was paid no wages. No documents now exist with regard to the shop and its profitability. On a number of occasions her father Harold Waters told her that ‘she was working for her inheritance’.

Harold died intestate in 1986 leaving a Spanish villa. Patricia believed that under Spanish law she inherited one third of the villa. Patricia signed a document transferring her share to her mother after her mother had told her that she was leaving her half of her estate. No documentary evidence exists in relation to Spain.

In 1998 the proceeds of the Spanish villa were remitted to the UK. £14,700 was paid to Mrs Waters and £10,000 each to Patricia and David. David stated that the £10,000 was intended by his mother to be held as an investment on her behalf. David bought BAE shares in his wife’s name with his money and paid the dividends over to his mother.

Patricia opened a six-month deposit bond with her £10,000 and once this matured a three year bond. For approximately 12 months Patricia gave her money the interest on a monthly basis. Patricia stated that this was because she wanted to help her mother out.

Patricia’s evidence was unequivocal that the £10,000 was a gift. By 2001 Mary Waters did not regard the £10,000 as a gift. Amongst her paperwork were a number of handwritten documents from that date making clear her feelings towards Patricia and the £10,000.

Patricia alleged that the reason for the estrangement was that her mother refused to acknowledge Patricia’s grandchild when he was born and refused to send presents to Victoria’s children as the post cost too much. A letter written by Mrs Waters asked for a picture of the grandchild and said that she would love to meet him and referred to Victoria ringing to thank her grandmother for sending presents. Victoria stated that this letter was untrue.

In October 2001 Patricia wrote to her mother and her brother stating that as far as she was concerned she no longer had an immediate family. Apart from one short phone call shortly after that letter there was no further contact between Patricia and her mother until her death.

When Mrs Waters made her will in 2009 she made a statement stating that she had had no contact with Patricia for almost nine years and that she had taken £10,000 of her savings.

Three weeks prior to her mother’s death Patricia was told her mother had terminal cancer. She made no attempt to contact her mother at that point.

The executors opposed both claims. The work carried out by Patricia and the vagueness of any promises were too slight to establish proprietary estoppel. Patricia misappropriated £10,000 belonging to Mrs Waters and also wrote her mother a letter in 2001 disowning her and stating that she wished she was dead. The executors claimed that this conduct disentitles her to any award.

Patricia obtained legal aid and her costs amounted to £67,000 while David’s costs were £30,000.

Held (disallowing the claims):

1. 1) Patricia Wright was an unreliable witness. The conclusion is that the £10,000 was not a gift. The payment of the interest for 12 months was consistent with the bond being held on her mother’s behalf. Patricia evidence for the interest was unconvincing.
2. 2) The documents prepared by Mrs Waters on 2001 give a clear account of her version of what occurred in 1998. None of the letters sent by Patricia to her mother or her brother in 2001 attempted to deal with the £10,000.
3. 3) Patricia was not telling the truth in relation to the £10,000. In these circumstances the judge’s do not feel that he can rely on her evidence in relation to the controversial evidence in relation to the 1970s and 1980s.
4. 4) Patricia did help in the family shops. It is not possible to assess the extent of the help accurately. However, she was provided with free board and lodging.
5. 5) On limited occasions Mr Waters referred to the shop as Patricia’s inheritance. However, Patricia’s working the shop was not in reliance of those comments. It was part of the quid pro quo of her parents helping with her child and in respect of the board and lodgings.
6. 6) The judge is unable to make any findings in relation to the financial arrangements of the second shop.
7. 7) He is not satisfied that Patricia had any interest in the Spanish villa or that she waived her rights to it. Her mother may have stated that she would give her half of her estate but Patricia did not act on this statement to her detriment.
8. 8) Therefore the claims based on proprietary estoppel fail as there were not clear representations relied on by Patricia.
9. 9) In relation to the Inheritance Act claim in Patricia’s favour is that she is the daughter of the deceased, she gave some help in the family shops, she is ill, she is living in necessitous circumstances and no other beneficiary has demonstrated a need for Mrs Waters’ bounty. However, Patricia’s conduct outweighs all the factors in her favour. She refused to return the £10,000, she wished her mother dead in the letter sent in October 2011 and never retracted her statements.
10. 10) It was objectively reasonable for Mrs Waters to make no provision for her daughter.

JUDGMENT JUDGE BEHRENS: 1. Introduction [1] This is a claim by Patricia Wright against the estate of her mother Mary Waters who died on 29 December 2010 at the age of 80. [2] The estate comprised principally of cash totalling £56,600 and a flat in Preston valued at £85,000. There were modest liabilities leaving a …

Continue reading "Wright v Waters & anr [2014] EWHC 3614 (Ch)"