Valuable estate causes rift with trial currently ongoing
Siblings argue their stepmother turned their father against them and state properties handed to her should be given to them.
Graham Dines, 69, fell into a coma after suffering a stroke in 2016 and died during a transatlantic cruise with his wife Helen Dines, and left behind an estate worth an estimated £4 million.
Possession of the estate is being fought for between Helen and her stepchildren, Elliot Dines, 42, and Louise Henry, 46. The relationship between her and her husband’s children was already fractured after starting a relationship with Graham whilst he was still married to their mother, they claim.
Although the estate was split between the three, a dispute has arisen over 12 rental properties in Bournemouth, worth around £1.3 million.
The properties on paper were owned by Graham and Helen, however the children claim the properties belonged to their father’s company, Provincial Equity Finance Ltd (PEF), which they inherited.
The siblings are claiming the money to buy the property came from the company and are now suing their stepmother claiming the properties should be handed to them.
Helen claims her husband wanted her to own the properties and that if they are given to the Graham’s children, she deserved a share of the fortune they have inherited.
Simon McLoughin, who acted on behalf of Elliot and Louise, said:
“Elliott and Louise say that Graham’s own volatile relationship with Helen placed additional strains from time to time on their own, already difficult relationship with their father.”
In addition to the properties, the pair are also asking for £130,000, that Helen transferred to herself from her late husband’s account before his death, also be handed over to them.
However, Edward Hewitt, who represented Helen in court, argued the money was from the proceeds of a sale of their former home and also denied the claim that the Bournemouth properties were bought using the profits of PEF. Hewitt stated:
“It is not enough for PEF to show that Helen did not provide the purchase money, it is also not enough for PEF to show that either PEF or Graham provided the purchase money.
Instead, PEF must positively establish to the court’s satisfaction that PEF alone – and nobody else – provided the purchase money.
In short, Helen says PEF has no beneficial interest in any of the 12 properties, which are beneficially owned by her, save for one property which has been sold since Graham’s death.
Helen also explains that the £130,000 transferred to her represents part of her share of the proceeds of sale of her and Graham’s previous matrimonial home, which she and Graham had expressly agreed was owned equally.”
Hewitt also stated that Helen had already begun a claim against Graham’s estate as she was seeking “reasonable financial provision” under the Inheritance Act 1975.
The case is currently ongoing with a ruling on the case expected at a later date.
