Kentish Gazette Canterbury & District
‘Greedy’ sons face £200k costs after losing court battle over father’s will
Two brothers tried to claim their sick father was not mentally well enough to leave half his will to their stepmother – even though his Parkinson’s disease was purely physical.
But Richard and Jonathan Powell were branded “greedy” and have lost their legal challenge that would have resulted in Ailsa Williamson Powell, 75, from Littlebourne, getting just £2,000 from the £250,000 estate.
The pair, who now face £200,000 legal costs, had claimed that their stepmother had persuaded David Powell to change his will, reducing the amount he left to them.
When the retired farm manager died aged 84 in 2012, after a battle with Parkinson’s, they found their stepmother now stood to receive half the inheritance.
In his ruling at the Central London County Court, judge Marc Dight said: “She was a devoted wife and did her utmost to look after her ill husband in what were frustrating and difficult circumstances for both of them.”
“The evidence from professionals who had dealings with her husband before he died pointed to him having been capable of making a valid will.”
Richard and Jonathan Powell, who were the late Mr Powell’s sons from his first marriage, had claimed that at the time the will was changed, their father’s ill- ness was so advanced that he could not have fully understood what he was doing.
But Mrs Williamson Powell, who is a former eye specialist at Kent and Canterbury Hospital, insisted she had not influenced her late husband’s wishes.
And the judge pointed out that most of the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease were physical and would not have impacted on his understanding.
Mr Powell made a will shortly after his marriage, leaving the bulk of his estate to his sons, with his wife receiving only £2,000.
But he made another in 2008, splitting the estate three ways and then another in 2009, in which Mrs Williamson Powell got half and his sons a quarter each, after small gifts to a church, a Parkinson’s charity and grandchildren.
She told the judge: “It was nothing to do with me, it was David’s decision. His difficulties were almost entirely physical.
“He was able to concentrate on what he wanted to. He could read his magazines, his papers and so on. He was perfectly able to understand his own affairs.
“That was one thing he could understand and manage. He managed all the financial affairs for both of us.”
Her barrister, Mark Dencer, called the sons “avaricious” and criticised their decision to fight the “uneconomical” case.
It was being brought simply because the sons did not like their stepmum, he claimed.
Mr Dencer said there was nothing unusual about a couple’s bond of affection and love increasing over time.
He added: “This is not a case of genuine concerns reasonably maintained, but of attempted self-enrichment should
the widow lack the stomach or means to fight.”
Financial advisor Richard Powell, 54, from Wandsworth, and his brother Jonathan, 55, who lives in America, initially claimed the first will in 2003, was his last true will.
However, they dropped the claim as the case neared judgement, instead arguing that the estate should be divided three ways, as per the 2008 will.
Their barrister, Noel Dilworth, said there were enough odd features about how the 2009 will came into being to make the court “suspicious”.
He said: “It was created only 18 months after the previous will, increasing Mrs Williamson Powell’s share for no obvious reason.”
He also claimed that a £5,000 gift to a church in the will was also ‘odd’, since Mr Powell was not religious, and it was ‘no coincidence’ that it was Mrs Williamson Powell’s church that would benefit.
Ruling in her favour, Judge Dight said: “The overwhelming impression I form from the evidence is that Mrs Williamson Powell and the deceased were in a loving and caring relationship.
“He plainly had difficulty in communicating, but the evidence suggests that was physical.
“It’s plain to me that the deceased did understand entirely what he was doing and that the will did reflect his instructions.”
He concluded: “The sugges- tion that he lacked testamentary capacity or didn’t know or approve the contents of the will is entirely without foundation.”
Mr Dencer said the legal costs of the case ran to around £200,000 and asked the judge to order the sons to foot the bill.
But Mr Dilworth, for the sons, said the costs should come out of the estate, as there had been reason to bring the case to court.
The judge will decide whether the sons or estate pay the costs at a later date.
‘He had difficulty in communicating, but the evidence suggests that was physical - it’s plain to me that the deceased did understand entirely what he was doing and that the will did reflect his instructions’