Moggy that solved £2m will mystery
Puss knocks over papers to reveal lost document
A WoMAn has won a £2million inheritance fight after her dead brother’s will was discovered when a cat knocked over a pile of papers in a solicitor’s office.
The will of Dean Brunt had been lost for two decades before the solicitor’s pet knocked over papers due to be shredded – revealing the crucial document.
Dean, his brother Dale and sister Venetia Murray had inherited a £6million farm from their grandfather. However, Dean, 35, who had mental health issues, died after stepping in front of a train in 2007 and it was thought he had not left a will. His £2million share of the farm went to his mother Marlene Brunt, 82, who in turn handed it to Dale, 40.
But Venetia, 36, then discovered the existence of two wills made by Dean in 1999.
It sparked a family feud in which she and her uncle Bob Wrangle, 80, clashed with Dale and Marlene. At the High Court in London, Judge Paul Teverson rejected claims by Dale and his mother that the wills were forged and ruled that Venetia will get half of Dean’s share of the farm in Broxbourne, Hertfordshire.
After Dean’s death, Marlene obtained ‘letters of administration’ over his estate on the basis that he had died without a valid will and with no children of his own. She inherited his share of the farm and passed it on to Dale. Then in 2018, Dean’s former legal adviser Howard
Day discovered what he said was his client’s final will among his files, which backed Venetia’s claim to half of the £2million.
Dale and Marlene claimed that document was a forgery and Mr Day died last year before the issue could be settled.
Barrister Duncan Macpherson, for Mr Wrangle, told how the ‘crucial’ second will was discovered in February this year. Papers relating to disputes within the family had been sent to Mr Wrangle’s solicitor Katy Sillett in London. She was organising the papers and had piled up unneeded duplicate copies ready to be destroyed.
Mr Macpherson told the judge: ‘ Her cat knocked over the papers for shredding.
‘When Mrs Sillett picked them up she realised that what she believed was a duplicate will was in fact an original.’ Mr Macpherson said it was agreed that the second will was written at the same time as the first and so it was ‘crucial evidence in support of the authenticity of both’. The judge said: ‘I am satisfied Dean understood what was in the will and did approve its contents.’