Carer inherits $587,000 from client despite judge’s misgivings
‘‘She was aware that such involvement was inappropriate.’’
Justice Rachel Dunningham
An Akaroa caregiver’s family trust has netted $587,000 from her millionaire client’s will, despite a High Court judge disbelieving her evidence and finding her behaviour suspicious.
Former businesswoman Prunella Downes, 75, became a caregiver to Akaroa identity and millionaire Frank Sheward in 2010, initially as a contractor for an agency and then also in a private capacity. Sheward, desperate to avoid a rest home, thought Downes might marry him and became increasingly dependent on her.
Her private hours were paid as gifts, cash cheques, payments for medical expenses and by a new Subaru car worth about $50,000.
Sheward, who died on September 6, 2013, was partly deaf and blind, and struggled with reading and writing. He owned a 2-hectare block of land in Rue Balguerie valued at $750,000 and about $587,000 in other assets.
In the months before he died, Sheward, a former Akaroa harbourmaster and farmer, executed two wills, one on April 14, in which he gave his land to his friends and neighbours Alastair and Neroli Davidson, and the rest of his estate to Downes’ family trust.
In another will, signed on April 18 at the local pharmacy, he gave the part of his property containing his house to the Downes trust and the remaining portion of land to the Davidsons. The trust also received the residue of the estate.
Sheward had also executed a will in 2011 in which he gave the land to the Davidsons and the remainder of his estate to the Guardians of Akaroa Hospital.
Justice Rachel Dunningham, in the High Court in Christchurch, had to decide which will was valid. She endorsed the April 14 will and invalidated the April 18 will, saying Downes’ behaviour had aroused the suspicion of the court.
She found the April 18 will was signed without Sheward’s proper knowledge and approval, and under Downes’ undue influence.
Justice Dunningham said Downes had encouraged Sheward to regard her family as his surrogate family and increased his dependency on her. At the family’s suggestion, he became godfather to her adult children.
Downes intervened in the last days of his life to keep the Davidsons away from his hospital bed and intervened inappropriately in other ways. The judge was not, however, satisfied Downes had exerted undue influence on Sheward in relation to the April 14 will. ‘‘She largely met his needs in the last three years of his life . . . no matter how rigidly she observed the boundaries of carer, he would have wanted to reward her generously.’’
In a written judgment released last week, Justice Dunningham said Downes had been rewarded generously by Sheward for her work and showed a considerable lack of judgment in observing the ethical standards required by her position.
The judge said she was suspicious of the April 18 will because it resulted from an amended copy of Sheward’s April 14 will sent to Sheward’s lawyer with handwritten notes and asterisks on it.
Although Downes denied it, the judge was satisfied Downes was active in making the suggested amendments.
‘‘The fact Ms Downes sought to deny her involvement in amending this document or, indeed, of even knowing the content of this will, reinforced to me she was aware that such involvement was inappropriate.’’
Justice Dunningham said asterisks on the amended document were in Downes’ handwriting and she did not accept Downes told Sheward not to leave her money. She had taken Sheward to a place to execute the April 18 will ‘‘where he was unlikely to be questioned or advised on the document’’.
Downes did not want to comment when contacted yesterday. The Davidsons are understood to be considering an appeal.