Millionaire’s wife loses court case against her daughter involving £900,000 trust fund
A widow has lost a court battle against her daughter for control of the family’s inheritance after a judge ruled she was rich enough to look after herself.
Elizabeth Ramus, 77, late husband was a millionaire lobster dealer. The couple were estranged before Chris Ramus, 72, committed suicide in June 2020.
Mr Ramus left £900,000 in a trust fund for his wife, despite her possessing her own fortune mounting to £1.6 million.
Claire Holt, the couple’s daughter, and two-family friends were given control of the fund and were instructed to continue payments for as long as “necessary”.
Due to fears of being cut-off, Elizabeth Ramus sued her daughter for control of the trust.
Ms Ramus claimed in court she did not want to be left at her daughter’s “mercy” and that she had a “strained relationship” with Ms Holt, and that her husband’s will did not make “reasonable financial provision” for her.
The widower’s lawyers argued her own personal fortune was set-aside to purchase a new house and required a £488,000 “retirement fund”.
However, Holt claimed her mother was being coerced by her brother Alistair Ramus, 44, who also had a strained relationship with Mr Ramus.
Holt claimed whilst her father was alive her brother persuaded their mother to leave their father because he no longer financially supported him. She also alleged her brother had attacked their father threatened to kill him.
Although, Ms Ramus stated that her relationship with her late husband became strained after they had retired and so decided to end their 48-year marriage.
Ms Ramus found her husband dead in their garage in June 2020. A coroner said the death was by suicide due to strains relating from family issues.
Mr Ramus left a note to his wife which read:
“I just want to say thank you for your kindness to me when I really don’t deserve it.”
Judge Mark West ruled that Alistair Ramus played no active part in the proceedings, but it was inferred that Ms Ramus wanted the fund so she could pass the inheritance on to her son. He concluded:
“In this case the value of Mrs Ramus’ assets significantly exceeds that of the estate of her late husband and she has sufficient to meet her needs.
This is not a case where the applicant has no assets or no autonomy over any assets or where the trustees could remove the roof from over her head.
She has assets in the region of £1.63m and even the purchase of a three-bedroom house in a desirable area of Harrogate for £750,000 would leave her with funds of £880,000, of which £488,000 is ring fenced as a retirement fund.
Standing back and looking at the matter in the round, this is a case of an applicant who in all likelihood would not have received anything on divorce and who, even after the purchase of a three-bedroomed house for £750,000, would have financial autonomy and still have net assets not far short of £900,000.
I am satisfied that the disposition of Mr Ramus’s estate under the terms of his will is such as to make financial provision for Mrs Ramus in the circumstances of the case and that the claim fails.”
Join nearly 5,000 other practitioners – sign up to our newsletter
