The partner of a fashion designer who died in 2017 is making an Inheritance Act claim against the estate of the deceased, as part of an ongoing legal battle with the family and professional executor.
Tibor Matyas (pictured left) was the “romantic and business partner” of Chris Liu (pictured right), who died of cancer aged 47. They created their Chris and Tibor label in 2005, with Matyas working on the management and marketing side of the business.
A London property jointly owned by the couple, worth £470,000, automatically passed to Matyas following Liu’s death. He also received a quarter share of one of two other London properties owned by Mr Liu. The majority of the remainder of the £1 million-plus estate was left to Liu’s parents and brother in China, in accordance with his 2015 will.
Matyas was initially made joint executor of the estate along with Liu’s brother, but both were replaced by a professional executor after a seven-year battle between Matyas and the Liu family.
Matyas is seeking a judge’s ruling under the 1975 Inheritance Act for “reasonable financial provision” from the estate, claiming he was financially dependent on Liu and will struggle to meet daily expenses without receiving more. He claims he is now jobless following the closure of the couple’s fashion label and is struggling to work due to looking after his dog.
Although Liu’s family have not travelled to the UK for the trial, they are defending the claim on grounds that most of the cash for the property purchases came from them. The claim is also being opposed in court by the administrator of the estate, Peter Daniel.
Written evidence provided by Matyas outlined how he was “financially and emotionally dependent on Chris… I was maintained by him and financially dependent on him.”
Questioning him about the extent of his “reasonable financial provision needs,” Deputy Judge Andrew Scott asked: “you seem to be an intelligent, capable and together person now and it’s not entirely clear to me why you can’t find employment?”
Matyas said he has struggled to get his career back on track after his partner’s death, despite previously taking on work as a chef to keep his head above water. He said he was also “alone and looking after my dog” which added to his financial needs, with an annual spend of £3,800 on pet food, vets’ bills and kennelling.
He explained to the judge that with a successful career behind him, he is now trying hard to get back into working as an entrepreneur, which takes time to plan, adding that as well as having to care for his dog, at the age of almost 50 finding work is a struggle.
“The only employment I can find is low-end and would be full-time, which would take up all my time. There would be no exit from that circle, because I would be working for survival,” he said.
The court heard Matyas also has significant debts, including legal bills, and wants his financial needs to be met from the estate through a regular income stream, rather than a one-off lump sum payment. He is claiming the properties should be shared equally between him and the estate on the basis of a “constructive trust” despite being in his partner’s name.
In his evidence, he insisted he and Mr Liu had always understood the properties were jointly owned, that they lived together “as though they were a married couple, and “our joint income originated from the same source, neither Chris nor I had any independent business ventures.”
Matyas claims his name couldn’t be on the property “due to pressure from Chris’s family” as “he had never been open about his sexuality” and his family believed the pair were simply business partners.
He added: “Chris asked me to allow the property to be registered in his sole name so that his family would stop questioning him.
“He assured me that this wouldn’t change anything about our home; it would still belong to both of us, and we would continue to share everything as always.”
Timothy Evans, barrister for estate administrator Peter Daniel, said the evidence showed the property purchases were funded by Mr Liu’s family and the cash used to acquire property “derived from payments made to the deceased from China”.
In relation to the reasonable provision claim, he said that to succeed Matyas must “show on the balance of probabilities that he lived with the deceased as though they were a married couple for the whole of the period from 10 April 2015,” and “must show that the will failed in all the circumstances, looked at today, to make reasonable financial provision for him.
“The provision actually made for him was a quarter share in Atkins Square, but the circumstances also of course include the fact that he took the whole of Thornbury Close (the shared property) by survivorship on the deceased’s death.
“Consideration as to whether any, and if so what, award should be made to Mr Matyas needs to take account of the interests of the other beneficiaries,” he added.
While Mr Liu’s fortune was valued at around £1,061,368, much of that could now be consumed by the legal costs of the dispute and other expenses, the court heard.
The judge has now reserved his ruling in the case.
Images: Champion News
