Daughter cut out of will wins share of £500k her mum lef t to animal charities
A WOMAN whose mother l eft her entire £ 489,000 fortune to animal charities yesterday won an eightyear court battle for a share of the money.
Heather Ilott, 54, was left with nothing when her mother Melita Jackson wrote her out of her will ‘in spite’.
She launched a series of legal challenges claiming i t was unfair for her mother to have made no provision for her only daughter.
The Court of Appeal has agreed, awarding her a £163,000 share of the fortune yesterday.
Mrs Jackson had been estranged from her daughter for many years before her death at 70 in 2004. Mrs Ilott left home at 17 to elope with boyfriend Nicholas. The pair married and have five children, aged 18 to 31.
Her lawyers described the will decision as ‘unreasonable, capricious and harsh’, particularly as it left Mrs Ilott and her family in severe financial difficulties.
She and her husband rent a housing association property in Ware, Hertfordshire, and have only a small joint income, the court heard. She has never taken a holiday and struggled to feed and clothe her family.
John Collins, for Mrs Ilott, said the mother and daughter had seen little of each other since the elopement and had suffered a further rift over a family name.
Mrs Ilott had called one of her children Ellen – to her mother’s disapproval – and it proved the final straw.
Describing Mrs Jackson’s decision to leave nothing to her daughter, Mr Collins told the court: ‘It is a picture of irrationality. It was not because she supported the charities, but simply out of spite.’
Mrs Jackson, whose husband Thomas died in 1960 just before Mrs Ilott was born, left instructions to the executors of her will that any claim by her daughter should be fought strenuously.
She wrote: ‘I can see no reason why my daughter should benefit in any way from my estate. I have made it clear to my daughter … that she can expect no inheritance from me when I die.’ Mrs Ilott launched her legal challenge against the terms of the will in 2007.
She asked for half of her mother’s fortune and was initially awarded £50,000. But that decision was overturned after the three charities that benefited from the will appealed.
The Blue Cross, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals argued Mrs Jackson had clearly wanted her money to go to charity.
But the panel of three judges at the Court of Appeal ordered she should be given £143,000 to buy her home in Ware, plus a further £20,000 to cover her expenses.
The rest of the inheritance will still go to charity.
A solicitor for the three charities said they would have to consider whether to take the case to the Supreme Court.
James Aspden said: ‘Charities rely upon income from legacies and the outcome of this case could have serious ramifications for the future of the charity sector as a whole.
‘Nearly £2billion a year is donated to charitable causes through legacies and, without it, much of their work would not be possible.
‘This case also raises serious questions about whether people generally have the freedom to choose who they want to leave money to in their will.’
The RSPCA’s David Bowles said: ‘Legacy income pays for one in every two animals we save.’
The question of legal costs, which may have to be covered by the pay-out, will be decided at a later date.
‘A picture of irrationality’