The long-lost nephew of an eccentric millionairess has received a £1.24m inheritance battle together with her stepdaughter after a decide rejected claims he was an imposter as ‘pure fantasy’.
Rich widow Jean Lech minimize out her stepdaughter Anna St Clair from her will utterly when she died in 2012, as an alternative splitting her cash between her nephew Nick King and her cleansing girl June Farrell.
She had solely lately established contact together with her 63-year-old nephew Mr King when she made the need in Could 2009, leaving him virtually all of her fortune, which was principally tied up in her share of her £2m residence in south London.
However Ms St Clair, 72, took the pair to courtroom in a bid to get the need declared invalid, claiming that Mr King was not a blood relative of her stepmum, however an ‘imposter’ who had deliberate with Mrs Farrell, 61, to pocket Jean’s fortune.
Mrs Farrell had discovered Mr King by going by means of a telephone guide searching for somebody with the identical surname as Jean’s brother who may play the function of the long-lost nephew, she claimed.
However following a trial on the Excessive Courtroom in London, Decide Mark Cawson QC threw out her case and handed victory within the inheritance battle to Mr King and Mrs Farrell.
‘Ms St Clair has continued to refuse to just accept that Mr King is something apart from an impostor, unrelated to Mrs Lech,’ he mentioned.
‘That is regardless of DNA assessments having been carried out, the existence of a beginning certificates, and the proof of his mom, along with that of Mr King himself.’
Jean Lech had solely lately established contact together with her 63-year-old nephew Nick King when she made the need in Could 2009, leaving him virtually all of her fortune
The remainder of Ms Lech’s cash went to her cleansing girl June Farrell, the Excessive Courtroom was instructed
Her phone guide ‘concept’ was ‘pure fantasy’, he mentioned, and he had little question however that Mr King is the son of Jean’s brother, Peter.
The courtroom heard Jean left behind a £1.24m legacy when she died aged 79, principally tied up in her half share of her £2m residence in Telford Avenue, Streatham.
She had co-owned the home together with her husband Zbigniew Lech, Ms St Clair’s pure father, who died aged 101 in 2008. He had left his half of the home finally to Ms St Clair and her daughter Carmen, with the stipulation that his widow may proceed to reside there till she herself died.
Ms St Clair, who now lives in Melbourne, Australia, was the principle beneficiary of a will made by her stepmum in 2007, however was left nothing in any respect within the revised doc made in Could 2009.
As a substitute it left £10,000 to cleansing girl Mrs Farrell, plus related items to every of Mrs Farrell’s two youngsters, and the remaining to her nephew, with whom Jean had solely lately established contact earlier than she died.
The decide mentioned Ms St Clair refused to just accept Mr King was a real relative, however in his proof Mr King mentioned he had been contacted by his ‘Aunty Jean’ and visited her a number of occasions throughout her closing couple of years, taking her out for meals.
Contesting the 2009 will, Ms St Clair instructed the courtroom that her stepmum – who was her dad’s third spouse – was notoriously bad-tempered and that she believes she had an delinquent persona dysfunction which, mixed together with her being in poor health when she made her final will, should see it invalidated.
She was not displaying ‘the considering fashion of a mature grownup however moderately that of a petulant baby’ by 2009 and would not ‘cross the take a look at for testamentary capability,’ she claimed.
The home in Telford Avenue, Streatham, on the centre of a courtroom battle over the need of the late Jean Lech
Giving examples of her uncommon behaviour, Ms St Clair mentioned: ‘One Christmas Day, she was, unusually, doing the washing up. My father made a remark about her losing the new water. She turned and threw the roast turkey by means of the closest window, inflicting glass to splinter all over the place. There was no festive dinner that day.’
She went on: ‘Jean was within the behavior of luring neighbourhood cats away from their homeowners by giving them contemporary fish.
‘On one event, one neighbour got here for a go to in search of his cat. So as to inject some good humour when it appeared as if the cat wouldn’t be returned, he mentioned ‘properly you higher be careful as a result of I’m an enormous dangerous lawyer.’
‘Jean immediately retorted: ‘And I am a f***ing b**ch, now get out’. The poor man by no means acquired his cat again.’
On one other event, Ms St Clair mentioned: ‘She screamed that I used to be poisoning her crops after I was in truth simply watering them. She made egregious and insane allegations.
‘She was fairly nice when she wasn’t drunk however when drunk turned insufferable.’
Ms St Clair additionally introduced a declare of ‘fraudulent calumny,’ arguing that Mrs Farrell, Jean’s cleaner, will need to have manipulated her stepmum into slicing her out of the need.
She claimed earlier than the decide that Mrs Farrell had ‘poisoned her thoughts’ towards her.
Moreover, she claimed Mrs Farrell and Mr King had been ‘in a relationship’ and had plotted collectively to inherit Jean’s cash.
However rejecting all of the allegations and Ms St Clair’s declare as a complete, the decide mentioned: ‘Mrs Lech…was clearly a larger-than-life and strong-willed character, who was able to being troublesome if she needed to be. The impression that I get…is that she required to be the centre of consideration, and had an inclination to take it out on others if she was not.
‘I’m left with the clear impression that Ms St Clair is motivated in bringing the current proceedings by a genuinely held sense of grievance that Mr King, and in addition Mrs Farrell, stand to inherit beneath the phrases of the 2009 will just about the entire of Mrs Lech’s property, which largely contains Mrs Lech’s 50% helpful curiosity in the home and premium bonds and shares inherited from Mr Lech.
‘This sense of grievance stems from Ms St Clair’s notion that her father, Mr Lech, paid for the home, with out Mrs Lech having made any contribution thereto and with out having made some other vital contribution to the wedding.
‘She subsequently sees it as fairly improper that property, which she sees as derived from her father’s efforts, ought to find yourself within the palms of individuals she regards as strangers, moderately than within the palms of herself and her daughter as Mr Lech’s closest kin.
‘The connection between Mrs Lech and Ms St Clair was by no means notably good.
‘Mrs Lech knew her personal thoughts, and was not any individual to be pushed round.
‘I’m unable to seek out, on the stability of possibilities, that any settlement in relation to the making of mutual wills was concluded between Mr Lech and Mrs Lech in respect of the wills that they made in 2007.
‘Ms St Clair’s case finally relies upon upon a concept that the alleged false representations uttered by Mrs Farrell had been about poisoning Mrs Lech’s thoughts towards Ms St Clair in order that Mrs Farrell may gain advantage, both by personally benefiting beneath Mrs Lech’s will, or benefiting by means of Mr King.
‘While Mrs Farrell and her youngsters did profit beneath the 2009 will, the legacies given had been comparatively modest having regard to the scale of the property and replicate the kind of legacy {that a} testatrix equivalent to Mrs Lech would possibly properly have left to an excellent buddy who had helped out in the best way that I’ve discovered that Mrs Farrell did. There may be, I take into account, nothing uncommon or stunning about them.
‘As far as Mr King is anxious, as thought-about above, I settle for his proof as to the circumstances wherein he got here to satisfy and preserve contact with Mrs Lech. I reject any suggestion that he was launched not directly to Mrs Lech by Mrs Farrell.
‘There may be nothing to assist the allegation that Mrs Farrell and Mr King had been or are in any type of private relationship, which they each emphatically deny.
‘There may be completely no proof to assist the suggestion that Mrs Farrell stands to profit in any method by means of Mr King.
‘Within the circumstances, a motive for Mrs Farrell making false representations as alleged is just not made out.
‘The proof of Mr King, which I settle for, is that he developed, albeit in a comparatively brief time period, an excellent relationship with Mrs Lech, having visited her on a lot of events earlier than she made the 2009 will, and thereafter till her demise. Mr King’s proof was that they acquired on properly, in distinction to the connection between Mrs Lech and Ms St Clair and Carmen.
‘Mr King was not recognized to Mrs Lech when she made her wills in 2006 and 2007.. By the point she got here to determine that Mr King ought to profit from the residue of her property, Mr Lech was not round to affect her testamentary tendencies, and she or he had established a relationship with Mr King. Within the circumstances, there was a sure rationale to not benefiting Ms St Clair and Carmen with whom she had had a fractious relationship, however benefiting Mr King as an alternative.
‘I don’t take into account that the proof establishes a case of fraudulent calumny,’ the decide mentioned.
He additionally went on to reject Ms St Clair’s argument that her stepmum lacked testamentary capability.
‘Ms St Clair has pulled collectively a lot of info which might be mentioned to go to Mrs Lech’s testamentary capability. Nonetheless, I take into account it plain that, in actuality, these info don’t accomplish that even when true.’
Referring to the allegations of eccentric and irrational behaviour, the decide mentioned: ‘These might reveal a level of lack of judgment on Mrs Lech’s half, if true, however not that Mrs Lech lacked testamentary capability as on the time that she made the 2009 will.
‘I don’t take into account that it may be assumed that Mrs Lech’s conduct was in any sense irrational in leaving her residuary property to Mr King and making the comparatively modest provision for Mrs Farrell that she did. Certainly, as I’ve already held, there was a sure rationality in what she did.
‘In any occasion, it’s completely open to a testator to behave unfairly, vindictively, perversely, or in any other case irrationally, though I recognise that, in applicable circumstances, such conduct would possibly level to the likelihood least of a scarcity of testamentary capability.
‘I’m happy on the proof that the 2009 will was executed with Mrs Lech’s data and approval.
‘It follows from the above that every of the challenges made by Ms St Clair to the validity of the 2009 will should fail, and subsequently that her declare needs to be dismissed.
‘Within the circumstances, I’ve no hesitation in announcing in favour of the pressure and validity of Mrs Lech’s will dated 20 Could 2009,’ the decide concluded.