In this article
A £1 million probate case starting in 2016 and presenting in court four times, has now been concluded with a landmark result.
This probate dispute has been gaining media attention over the years – partly due to people’s interest in the case because they too are experiencing a similar conflict.
Probate disputes can be extremely tricky to navigate and ruinously expensive, as shown in the Rea v Rea case, where legal terminology can be construed, and family drama can cloud judgment.
If you are dealing with a contentious probate, speak to our expert lawyers on 020 3007 5500, or submit a contact form.
Rea Vs Rea, Rea and Rea: an overview
In 2016 Anna Rea passed away, leaving her estate to her 4 children. A significant portion of the estate was left to her daughter, Rita, and only minor gifts left to the three sons.
This was the beginning of a very contentious probate where Rita’s three brothers took her to court, claiming that she unduly influenced her mother to write the Will in her own favour.
What is probate?
Probate is the organisation of someone’s affairs and distribution of their estate upon their death in accordance with their Will.
As seen in the case of Rea v Rea, if inheritors of an estate disagree with the distribution of assets, they can instruct solicitors and in certain circumstances contest the Will in court.
Talk to us now. Save costs further down the line.
Save yourself potentially thousands of pounds by seeking advice now. Speak to us today for more information.
Lines open 24/7
020 3007 5500
What happened in the case of Rea Vs Rea, Rea and Rea
Our client, Rita, was in litigation since 2016 over her late mother’s Will which left a small gift to each son and left the whole family home to Rita.
Rita’s brothers, unhappy with the unequal distribution, made various allegations including that:
- Their mother lacked the capacity to make her Will
- Their mother did not understand or approve the contents of the Will
- Rita coerced her late mother into making a Will which would only benefit her
- Rita had poisoned their mother’s mind into believing that her sons had abandoned her.
We argued that the allegations made had no evidence and that the brothers were “grasping at straws”.
Rita moved in with her mother, becoming her sole carer in the last 7 years of her life. Anna did genuinely feel abandoned by her sons, hence her decision to leave her assets in the way she did.
The first trial
At the first trial, the judge concluded that the brothers had fallen “well short” of the requirement to prove their claims. He dismissed every allegation and ruled in favour of Rita.
The first appeal
Despite the conclusion judgment, the brothers were successful in overturning the judgment of appeal due to an unfortunate procedural error in the first trial.
As a consequence, the Court of Appeal ruled that there must be a re-trial of the case which was listed for July 2023.
What is undue influence?
Undue influence arises when a person acts in a way that coerces the other to do something against their own free will, such as making a Will to a certain person’s benefit when that is not what they want to do.
The second trial
The second trial judge ruled that Rita’s late mother did have the testamentary capacity to make her Will, as verified at the time by her doctor and the solicitor drafting her Will. He also ruled that Anna knew and understood what she was doing and that her mind was not “poisoned” by Rita.
However, this judge surprisingly found that undue influence had been exercised by Rita in relation to the making of the Will. He also found, crucially, that it was open to Rita’s mother as “a matter of historical fact” that her sons had abandoned her.
The second appeal
Our solicitors’ view was that the Judge was wrong to find undue influence. For the last few months, Solicitors have been working on an appeal, instructing Mr Robert Deacon of Thomas More Chambers as counsel.
Britton and Time are delighted that the judgment was given by the Court of Appeal in Rita’s favour again.
Three of England’s most senior judges have determined that the second trial judge was wrong to have found undue influence, and that he misapplied the law.
Struggling with a probate dispute?
Don’t worry, we’re here to give the advice you need when you need it. Just contact us to arrange an appointment.
Lines open 24/7
020 3007 5500
A landmark case for contentious probate
During the court hearing, one of the judges in the Court of Appeal went on to clarify:
“Undue influence can be proved without demonstrating that the circumstances are necessarily inconsistent with any alternative hypothesis. On the other hand, the circumstances must be such that undue influence is more probable than any other hypothesis. If another possibility is just as likely, undue influence will not have been established. When making that assessment, moreover, it may well be appropriate to proceed on the basis that undue influence is inherently improbable.”
What does this mean?
Effectively, to prove undue influence, the court must consider the possible innocent explanations for the conduct. Undue influence should only be considered if it’s more probable than the other possible innocent reasons. Deciding undue influence based only on the fact that it is a possible reason is not sufficient.
The judge also clarified that “mere persuasion” or “encouragement” is not undue influence.
An example in relation to this case – if you suggest to your parents that they should leave their property to you under a Will and exclude your siblings, this is not undue influence. However, if you were to phone your parents every day, pressuring them to change their Will, and your parents only did so because of your pressure, that would be undue influence.
The Court of Appeal found that Rita’s mother’s belief that her sons had abandoned her was a perfectly innocent explanation for leaving the Will in the way she did.
Crucially, the trial judge found that it was completely open to Anna to believe this, which undermined his judgment, and showed that he had failed to consider the innocent explanations as required by law.
The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal finalised his judgment by saying:
“I do not consider that the evidence before the Judge was capable of supporting a finding of undue influence”.
This decision will surely put Rea v Rea at the top of the list of authorities for undue influence claims.
What happens to the Rea family now?
This case started in 2016 and has now hopefully reached its conclusion, provided there is no appeal to the Supreme Court.
Probate administration can now take place, meaning that the estate is distributed to each inheritor according to the Will.
We’re so pleased that we were able to win this case for Rita, who has undergone years of stress and financial worries due to ongoing legal proceedings.
Hopefully, this clarification in the law will help many others going forward. Britton and Time’s Managing Director, Paul Britton, commented on the ruling that it’s
‘A good day for those who are there for their loved ones at the end of life – and a bad day for anyone coming out of the woodwork and expecting a quick buck’.
Well done to our litigation team that worked tirelessly on Rita’s case. Notably, Paul Britton, Elisabeth Squires, Joseph Navas, Grace Marchant, and Leonardo Bosco.
If you need help with a probate dispute, you can trust our expert solicitors to get you the result you deserve.
How can Britton and Time Solicitors help?
We know how stressful and costly probate disputes can be. That’s why our initial consultations with our boundary dispute solicitors offer you:
- Unlimited time to go through the details of your case and ask any questions you may have
- An overview of your legal standpoint and your available options
- A precise time and fee estimate for your case
To arrange your initial consultation with one of our solicitors, simply call us on 020 3007 5500.
0 Comments