Warring siblings have been instructed to sell their mother’s property; but not for another 14 years, until the 70th birthday of the sister.
The case related to a Smooth Radio DJ Philip Chryssikos and his sister Maria who remained in the family home to care for their mother in later life. In the final years of their mother Stella’s life, the relationship between the siblings became “fraught with aggression” before Stella’s death in 2020 led to a court fight over the £1.2m property.
Having remained in the property, sister Maria said there has always been an agreement the house would be there for either of them to live in for their rest of their lives. Brother Philip however was keen to release the value of the inheritance and sell the home. Claiming a life interest in the property, Maria said it was she who had cared for their mother to the detriment of her own career, sacrificing work to look after her. Philip eventually sued his sister to get her out of their childhood home in Acton,
The court was told Stella Chryssikos was keen for the property to remain in the family and available to either of the siblings should they need it.
“The deceased led Maria to believe that the property was to be Maria’s home for the rest of her life and that Maria – and Philip if he so wished – would always be able to live at the property” said Defendant Maria’s barrister Richard Buston.
“In particular, the deceased made clear to Philip and Maria from late 1999 onwards that she wanted Maria to remain at the property after her death and that she should not be evicted or have to pay rent.
“She regularly made clear from when Maria and Philip were in their early twenties that the property should remain in both Philip’s and Maria’s names as to 100% each, and if one of them died, it would go to the other.
“The deceased was concerned to ensure that, if anything ever went wrong in any relationships that Maria and Philip had, their ability to enjoy the property would be unaffected.”
Buston added Maria had spent ‘a fortune’ on the maintenance of the house given her mother’s promise, and also lost out on furthering her career while caring for her.
“Maria is self-employed and the single shareholder of a limited company and thus would not receive a private pension. However, the deceased would tell Maria that she didn’t need to buy any property as an investment for her future but to invest her money in the property instead.
“Maria was able to provide the deceased with constant care, to the detriment of her career, personal life and social life, in reliance on the deceased’s assurance that the property would always provide Maria with a home and an investment for her future.”
Countering Philip Chryssikos said they had both been carers for their mother, and although acknowledged it was his mother’s wish for them to continue to reside at the house, denied it was her intention for it be for the rest of their lives.
“It was a roof over our heads. My mother never spoke of joint tenancies, she simply always referred to her will, which was 50-50.
“During her lifetime, the house was there, beyond her lifetime it reverts to the will.
“It was always strictly to the will. We both were aware of the will. That was fair. You can’t get fairer than 50-50 in a will from a parent.”
In arriving at the decision Judge Ashby described it as a “complete tragedy” that the siblings had ended up fighting each other in court, adding it was unlikely their mother would have wanted them to end up in such a dispute.
He said the house could be sold, but not until the 70th birthday of 56 year old Maria, rejecting her bid for a life interest in the house. An application to bring a claim for increased provision from her mum’s will was also refused.
He said the care provided to their mother by Maria, which he described as ‘the lion’s share’, and a letter written by her mum in 2016 – stating her “wish the house to remain Maria’s residence at her expense and not be evicted” – were crucial to his decision.
“I think the care in particular is an important factor. When you put that together with this letter, on the balance of probabilities it paints a picture of for many years Maria being the primary carer, making sacrifices in relation to her work and career and social life, and acting to her detriment on the promise that mum wanted the property to remain her residence if she paid for it.
“The inclusion of the line ‘and not to be evicted’ is telling. She wanted her to be able to stay. But it doesn’t say for how long. It doesn’t say ‘forever.’ It didn’t seem to me that she would want Philip to be kept out of all of his interest forever, which is effectively what would happen if there was a life interest. It seems to me therefore that the intention was that it could remain as her residence for a period of time.
“Where we get to is a licence to occupy until the earliest of when she doesn’t require the home as her residence or the age of 70.”
No costs were awarded.
