Beautician overturns her dad’s ‘DIY will’ in court to inherit £300k
A BEAUTICIAN disinherited in her father’s £300,000 “DIY will” has been awarded all the money after a High Court battle.
A judge heard Terri Tibbles, 40, had been close to her car dealer father William and expected to inherit his entire estate when he died aged 75 in 2018.
In a letter of wishes attached to his March 2017 will, William said Terri’s twin Kelly and his other daughters Susan and Cindy had been a “disappointment” to him, while his son Paul was already financially secure.
But three days after his death a second will, written on a piece of paper “torn from a notebook”, was handed to his solicitors. It left everything to Kelly, Susan, Cindy and Paul.
Judge Matthew Marsh, however, backed Terri’s argument that the will could have been signed by anybody and there was no reason forWilliam to have changed his mind so drastically.
The judge ruled the will was not valid and gave Terri the right to all her father’s cash.
Car dealer William, below, from Tilbury, Essex, was described in court as a “colourful character” who had a habit of leaving large amounts of cash around the house, sometimes in a cornflakes packet.
In the second contested will, dated days before he died, Paul was named sole executor.
In a U-turn, the note declared that William wished his estate to be “shared equally between my son and my three daughters: Susan, Cindy and Kelly”.
Logistics company manager Paul, who lives in Ireland, claimed his father validly signed and executed his final will the day before he went into hospital for the last time.
But suing her brother as executor, Terri, who runs a beauty training school in Grays, Essex, told the judge: “I don’t accept this document
‘I don’t accept this was ever signed by my dad. It could just as well have been written by anybody’
constituted a valid will. I don’t accept that this document was ever signed by my dad.
“It would have been totally uncharacteristic for him to prepare a DIY will, considering his long history of previous dealings with solicitors.
“The document could just as well have been written and signed by anybody.”
Paul told the court Susan, Kelly and Cindy had cared for their father during his last months and claimed
William had been determined change his will before he died.
He said his father’s second will was valid and cancelled out the earlier one, but because he missed a deadline for filing documents for the case, Paul was unable to call evidence.
Judge Marsh said of William’s last will: “It’s handwritten and not in Mr Tibbles’ handwriting. It’s written on a sheet of paper which appears to have been torn from a notebook.”
He said the opinion of a handwriting expert who said there was “moderate to strong evidence” to show William was not responsible for signing the 2018 will was also “powerful
to evidence against Paul’s case”. The judge added: “It’s plain that there is insufficient evidence to show due execution of the 2018 will.
“There’s no real explanation for his change of mind and no evidence about him signing it.
“All the evidence and the background circumstances point heavily against the 2018 will being a valid document.”
Judge Marsh ruled in favour of Terri and the earlier will, meaning she inherits everything.
He made his ruling last year, but the will has only now been formally admitted to probate.