Sister loses share of £1m will after lying about her brother
A DEVIOUS woman has been disinherited from her late father’s £1million will after her lies led to her brother being written out of it.
Sonia Whittle turned Gerald Whittle against his son David with vicious false accusations shortly before his death, a court was told.
A judge heard Sonia falsely labelled her brother and his wife as “psychopaths” and “criminals” to their elderly confused dad in a “disgraceful” bid to cut them out of the will.
The court also heard she hid the £1million inheritance of antiques and classic cars from him. And she failed to tell David of their father’s death and he only found out after a frantic two-month search, it was claimed.
A High Court judge has ruled the will “invalid” on the grounds it was obtained fraudulently and through undue influence. Known as “fraudulent calumny”, it is only the third ruling of its kind since 2007.
Delivering the verdict at Bristol High Court, District Judge Tony Woodburn described it as a “disgraceful” and “appalling” attempt to cut a rightful beneficiary out of will. The court heard father-of-two Gerald died
aged 92 in December 2016, just three weeks after executing his will and appointing daughter Sonia and her partner, Ray Spicer, as executors.
Apart from a bequest to David of Gerald’s old cars, the entire estate, valued at around £1million, was left to Sonia and Ray. To take instructions for the will, Gerald’s solicitors sent a trainee legal executive to his house. Sonia told them that David and his wife Julie were “psychopaths and criminals” who had stolen large sums from Julie’s mother.
Sonia falsely claimed David had stolen his fathers’s antiques and classic cars and that police had issued a harassment order against them.
The judge noted that on a visit by David to his father, Sonia called her brother a thief in a foul-mouthed tirade. The exchange upset Gerald who had leukaemia and “was prone to confusion and was physically frail.” He wrote his will the next day.
The defendants denied fraudulent calumny. But the judge ruled Sonia “succeeded in falsely and unduly influencing” Gerald to marginalise or exclude David from a substantial share in the estate. He added: “The claimant has clearly succeeded in proving fraud and undue influence.”