Brothers lose court struggle with sister left £850,000 in will
THREE brothers who blamed a “grumpy” judge for leaving them empty-handed in a £850,000 row over their mum’s will have lost their case.
Remo, Nino and David Rea claimed their mother Anna, who died aged 86 in 2016, all but cut them out of her legacy because their sister Rita had poisoned her mind against them.
The trio, all in their 50s, fought their sibling for an equal share of their mother’s estate in 2019, when a judge ruled against them, handing everything to Rita, 56.
But they appealed, blaming “annoyed” and “grumpy” judge Deputy Master Jonathan Arkush for not giving them a fair hearing and insisting they should get a second chance to fight their case.
Grumpy
Ruling on the appeal yesterday, the High Court rejected their claims and handed the estate to Rita.
Appeal judge Mr Justice Adam Johnson said the original judge had been fair and attempted to help the brothers – though he had at times been “impatient”.
The court heard that an earlier will – written by Anna in 1986 – divided everything equally between her four children.
But another – from 2015 – left her sons with very small legacies, while their sister, who became her mother’s live-in carer in 2009, inherited a £850,000 home in Tooting, south
London. Brother David said she’d “hit the jackpot”.
He, Remo and Nino – representing themselves – challenged the will, claiming their sister planted a false idea in their mother’s mind that they had “abandoned” her.
Judge Arkush rejected that and upheld the will. At the appeal, the brothers’ barrister Robin Howard argued the men had been “put off their stroke” by the interventions of a judge who “lost patience” with them.
He told Mr Justice Johnson: “It is difficult to imagine any advocate, but certainly an amateur first-time advocate, not thinking he is up against a judge who is a bit grumpy.”
Giving judgment on the appeal, Mr Justice Johnson said Deputy Master
Arkush had intervened during the trial in order to help the brothers because they did not have a lawyer.
In his ruling, he said: “I do not detect any animus towards the defendants or, more particularly, towards their case.
“While the deputy master did show signs of impatience, I do not consider that gave rise to any unfairness.”