She and daughter Heather Ilott, 54, from Hertfordshire, had been estranged
But Mrs Ilott claimed money belonged to late father, whom she never met
Court of Appeal ruled Mrs Jackson failed to make 'reasonable provision' for her daughter
A daughter who was written out of her mother's will in a bitter letter because she eloped 37 years ago has been awarded £160,000 following an eight-year legal battle.
Melita Jackson decided not to leave a single penny for her daughter Heather Ilott and even wrote a letter explaining why the 54-year-old 'should not expect any inheritance when I die'.
The pair had fallen out when Ms Ilott married her boyfriend at the age of 17 and never reconciled before Ms Jackson's death in 2004.
Heather Ilott, pictured appearing at the High Court in 2011, has won a £160,000 slice of her mother's estate following an eight-year legal battle with three animal charities
She also instructed the executors of her will to fight any claim Mrs Ilott might make after her death, adding: 'I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate. I have made it clear to my daughter'.
But, despite the 70-year-old leaving her entire £489,000 fortune to three animal charities, the Court of Appeal has now ruled that her daughter - who was last year granted £50,000 after asking for half of the inheritance - is entitled to a chunk of the money.
In a rare case of its kind, Lady Justice Arden today more than tripled the payout saying that Mrs Jackson had failed to make 'reasonable provision' for her daughter.
Although it is hard for claimants to contest an estate, claimants can overturn wills if they can prove they are not valid or if they can show they have not been given 'reasonable financial provision' - which is often difficult for a self-sufficient adult.
Charities have now warned that other benefactors could be deterred from leaving legacies to charities if they fear their wishes would be overruled by the courts.
During the case, the court had been told how Mrs Ilott - a mother of five who is still married to her teenage sweetheart Nicholas - was struggling for money and wanted to buy her housing association property in Great Munden, Hertfordshire.
Judges ruled the money, which had been left to the RSPCA, Blue Cross and RSPB, should be awarded to Mrs Ilott due to her 'basic human need' and that it was 'unreasonable' to leave her daughter with nothing.
The 54-year-old said she needed the money to buy a house in this street in Great Munden, Hertfordshire
They also said it was a derivative fortune from assets belonging to her father Thomas Jackson, who died in an industrial accident two months before she was born.
Barrister Brie Stevens-Hoare QC said the family had been kept off the housing ladder and had 'never had a holiday'.
'She had difficulty affording clothes for her family, was limited in the food she could buy and much of what she had was old or second hand,' she said.
She also told the court that Mrs Jackson was 'unreasonable, capricious and harsh' and had left her money to charity to spite her - not because she supported the charities’ work - in a 'picture of irrationality'.
She said: 'Mrs Jackson took offence at Heather's choices although they were choices she was entitled to make and it was reasonable to expect her mother to accept.
The mother-of-five was initially awarded £50,000 but went back to court to appeal the decision
'Instead her mother consistently undermined reconciliation attempts. Although Heather was at some fault, her mother was the dominant cause.'
Yesterday, following a lengthy series of legal appeals and challenges, the panel of three judges ordered she should be given £143,000 to buy her housing association home in Ware, plus a further £20,000 to cover her expenses. The rest of the inheritance will still go to charity.
Following the judgement, James Aspden, solicitor for the three charities said they were 'surprised and disappointed' by the court's decision.
He added: 'Charities rely upon income from legacies and the outcome of this case could have serious ramifications for the future of the charity sector as a whole.
'Nearly £2 billion a year is donated to charitable causes through legacies and, without it, much of their work would not be possible.
'This case also raises serious questions about whether people generally have the freedom to choose who they want to leave money to in their will'.
Mr Aspden said the charities would now give 'very careful consideration' to the case before deciding whether or not to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The solicitor added: 'This is a worrying decision for anyone who values having the freedom to choose who will receive their property when they die'.
Sally de la Bedoyere, chief executive of the Blue Cross charity, said: 'Blue Cross depends on the generosity of our supporters and, as such, we will always endeavour to fulfil their wishes.
'Over the past eight years we have defended the wishes of Mrs Jackson to the very best of our abilities. We are deeply saddened that the courts have decided not to honour them'.
Mike Clarke, the RSPB's chief executive, said: 'It is regrettable that, occasionally, courts need to become involved in interpreting the terms of a person's will.
'Not only is it damaging to the work of charities, but it may also cause concern to people who intend to leave a gift to a charity they feel passionately about'.
David Bowles, assistant director the RSPCA, said: 'Legacy income pays for one out of every two animals we save and without it, much of our work would not be possible.
'This court decision goes against a person's desire to give their money to whomever they wish.
'We are immensely grateful for the kindness of people like Mrs Jackson who choose to remember the needs of animals in her will.
'And we hope that this does not stop others continuing to give money to help suffering animals'.
DailyMail
No comments:
Post a Comment