A will that was made by a woman living with advanced dementia just four months before she died has been overturned by the High Court.
Master Katherine McQuail declared the 2021 will of Peggy Dalton invalid due to lack of proper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, and want of knowledge and approval.
The judge also found there had been undue influence on the part of Robert Dalton, Peggy’s son, and his wife Carly (both pictured).
In the written judgment, Master McQuail criticised the role of the will writer, saying she took “no comfort from his note saying Peggy was not under duress”.
There was no sign he had discussed the new will with Peggy on her own, or gathered medical evidence to assess whether Peggy was mentally fit to make a will.
“I cannot give any credibility to his ability to assess whether there was any duress or influence of an improper sort,” the judge said.
Peggy Dalton died in March 2021 at the age of 93, after being admitted to a care home in February 2021 with “quite advanced” dementia.
Just four months before, in November 2020, a will was executed which was “a radical departure” from a 2018 will, which had left the bulk of her £600,000 estate to be split between her two surviving sons, Richard and Robert.
In the November 2020 will, almost all the estate was left to Robert and Carly, with Richard disinherited.
By that time, the court heard, Peggy was in a state of mental decline due to dementia.
In a claim brought by Richard Dalton, the court heard Robert and Carly had moved into Peggy’s home in early 2020 and a power of attorney was made putting Robert in control of his mother’s affairs.
Barrister Julian Reed, for Richard Dalton, told the court: “That move – from nine to 11 months before the 2020 will was executed – afforded Robert and Carly time to coerce the deceased to make a will favourable to them.
“Once they were in the deceased’s property, she was isolated from both family members and health professionals. Family members could no longer attend to administer the deceased’s medication, social workers were denied access to the deceased.”
A note from the will writer recounted Peggy saying that Richard had stolen £100,000 from her and been charged with attempted murder after attacking Robert.
“That passage raises serious concerns, because the various concerns held by social services suggest it was Robert who was taking monies from the deceased and he had a drug habit,” said the barrister.
“That suggests either confusion on the part of the deceased or undue influence upon her from either of the defendants, Robert and Carly. Richard did not steal £100,000 from the deceased.”
He told the judge there had been an incident when, after Robert challenged Richard about driving their mum’s car, Richard had become angry and driven the car in his brother’s direction, leading to a dangerous driving conviction.
“The deceased was not present for the incident between Richard and Robert,” said Mr Reed.
“Thus the deceased, given she had been isolated, would only have learned of the incident from Robert or possibly Carly.
“Richard has never been charged with attempted murder. The fact that the deceased believed that he had been charged reveals a false account of events from Robert or lack of capacity to understand and retain information.
“The only logical reason for Robert providing a false account to the deceased would have been to unduly influence her against Richard for the benefit of himself.”
He said that all the evidence points to there having been “coercion” by Robert and Carly in order to get her to make a will “for their benefit.”
“It would have been very easy for them to coerce her,” he said.
“She had been separated from family, separated from social services, separated from medical professionals – and was dependent on Robert and Carly.
“They, at that point, had control of her credit cards and were spreading false information about Richard attempting to murder Robert.
“All of those factors establish that there has been undue influence in relation to this will.”
He said there was evidence that Peggy was already suffering from dementia before Robert and Carly moved into her home around the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.
She was hospitalised less than a month after the will was executed and, when discharged to a care home shortly afterwards, was said to have “quite advanced” dementia.
It was unlikely that, if she was so badly stricken by the time she entered the care home in February 2021, that she would have been fit enough to make a new will three months earlier, the court heard.
The barrister said Robert and Carly had instructed solicitors when Richard’s case was first lodged at court, but had since failed to engage with the proceedings and did not turn up for the trial.
Giving judgment at the end of a one-day trial, Master McQuail said Peggy’s apparent belief that Richard had tried to kill Robert had “no basis in reality.”
“Either Peggy came to believe that because she was told it by Robert or Carly, or she independently erroneously reached an erroneous belief to that effect,” she said.
“In any event, this calls into question her state of mind and her understanding of the circumstances of making the will – and therefore her understanding of the will making process.”
By November 2020 – when the will was drawn up – Peggy was in a state of mental decline due to dementia and unable to properly understand, she continued.
“In my judgment, by late 2020, the deceased was unable to comprehend or appreciate the documents to which she should give effect due to her misunderstanding of the issues or due to falsely planted information about what had passed between Richard and Robert, and the apparent attempt by Richard to murder his brother,” she said.
She declared the will invalid due to lack of proper execution, lack of testamentary capacity and want of knowledge and approval – also finding “undue influence” on the part of Robert and Carly.
“They moved in with the deceased in early 2020 and kept her socially isolated from family members and medical professionals,” she noted.
Both Robert and Carly were there when the instructions were given for the will and, although the writer said Peggy was “not under duress,” the judge said this held no weight.
“There is a thread of anxiety throughout the court papers expressed by social care professionals and Peggy’s family members about Robert and Carly’s involvement in her financial affairs.
“Her health and medical capacity had deteriorated and declined by the end of 2020, and I infer that, to the extent she had capacity to make any will, her volition was subsumed by Robert and Carly and the will was the product of their wishes, not hers.”
She added: “If the will was executed properly and the deceased had capacity at that time, the will would nonetheless be void for reasons of undue influence.”
The judge went on to confirm the validity of the previous 2018 will and to order that Robert and Carly – who are still living in Peggy’s house – must pay Richard’s legal bill, estimated at around £190,000.
Speaking afterwards, Richard said his mother had been a “very special individual,” who despite losing her husband and two children “always found a reason to smile.”
“She never judged anyone and always did the right thing,” he said. “We hope she would be proud of us for sticking with this until the end.”
Kate Harris, partner in the private wealth disputes team at Birketts LLP, said the case serves as “a striking reminder” of how readily a will can unravel where it is driven by false beliefs or external influence.
“The court was clearly persuaded that the deceased’s decision to disinherit her son in favour of his ‘black sheep’ brother was not a rational change of mind, but the product of a deeply serious and wholly unfounded allegation — an alleged attempted murder — which had no basis in reality.
“Cases based on ‘insane delusion’ remain relatively rare, so it is notable to see the court engage directly with the concept here. The threshold is high: it is not enough that a testator is mistaken or unfair; the belief must be irrational and impervious to reason, and it must materially affect the terms of the will. On the facts, the court found that threshold met.
“The issues of isolation and influence which arose in this case are equally significant and highlight that situations where one family member moves in with an elderly and vulnerable person and becomes the primary conduit of information are always likely to attract close scrutiny from the court. While undue influence is notoriously difficult to prove, this case shows how evidence of manipulation can reinforce a finding that a will does not reflect the testator’s true, independent intentions.
“From a practical perspective, the case highlights the risks surrounding late-life will changes, particularly where they involve a dramatic departure from an established testamentary scheme. For practitioners, it underlines the importance of careful will‑taking procedures, including probing the reasons for exclusion and documenting capacity and independence.
“Ultimately, the court’s decision to reinstate the earlier will demonstrates its willingness to intervene where the integrity of the testamentary process has been compromised – especially where serious false allegations have been used to justify disinheritance.”
Image courtesy of Champion News
