‘Greedy’ daughter ordered to hand back millions after fight with brother over mum’s will

A “greedy and entitled” daughter who plundered her rich mother’s bank accounts to pay for holidays, meals at the Ivy and her own daughter’s five-star wedding has been ordered to hand back £2.6million of her mother’s fortune after losing a case to battle her brother in the High Court.

But Sandra Thomas, 65, is still set for a multimillion-pound inheritance after a judge rejected claims that her elderly mother Jeanne MacDougall was not of sound mind when she excluded her son Gary MacDougall, 70, from her final will.

Judge Nicola Rushton KC said Sandra and her husband Philip Thomas “extensively and wholesale” misappropriated more than £1million of Jeanne’s money as a personal piggy bank out of “greed” and used Jeanne’s accounts “as if they were their own”.

Moreover, they had “unduly influenced” the pensioner into transferring three properties to them, including a family holiday home, worth a total of around £1.6 million.

The judge upheld Jeanne’s will – largely benefiting Sandra and Philip – but ruled that they must pay back to the estate the money they received, the property or its value, a total of around £2.6 million, half of which builder Gary is now entitled to receive.

“Suffice it to say that the misuse of Jeanne’s bank accounts by Sandra and Philip was extensive and wholesale,” he said in his decision.

“Jeanne’s accounts and assets were used by Sandra and Philip as if they were their own, without regard to any fiduciary duties or even familial obligations to Jeanne.”

During the hearing in February, the judge heard the MacDougall family fortune was derived from the “significant property portfolio” of the brothers’ property developer father, Alec MacDougall.

Development properties have been purchased, renovated and let, mostly in the Acton and Ealing areas of West London, making significant profits.

According to Gary, attorney Harry Martin claimed that over the years it was made clear to the two siblings by their parents that they would ultimately receive “generally equal financial treatment and inheritance.”

This included his father insisting to Gary that he would not need a significant pension because he would inherit property on which he would live in retirement, the lawyer said.

Following their father’s death, the brothers’ mother drew up a will in 2008, which Mr Martin said meant a “generally equal” division between her son and his family on the one hand, and his daughter and son-in-law on the other.

Under this will, Gary and his family would receive property in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while Sandra and Philip would receive houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens, and Sandra would receive most of the money in their bank accounts.

However, another will was made in 2011; Under this will, all four properties were given to his sister and brother-in-law; Sandra would continue to receive most of her savings.

Mr Martin said Gary and Sandra would split the remainder, but it would “most likely be worth nothing” due to the costs and expenses of administering the estate.

Gary, who worked in the family business with his mother, claimed the will was invalid because Jeanne had “lost almost all of her independence” by then.

The pensioner also claimed that he did not have the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when he signed the will and did not fully understand the impact of the will.

He also claimed more than £1 million of his mother’s money was “misappropriated” from bank accounts before her death and that his sister and brother-in-law spent on themselves and their families.

He said the money went to meals at the Ivy, holidays, new cars, shopping trips and his daughters’ wedding at the Savoy, among other things.

Alexander Learmonth KC, for the now estranged couple, said they had agreed to exceed their duties under the durable power of attorney (LPA) by spending Jeanne’s money on themselves and their family.

But he said it was actually “an advance on his estate” because most of his money had already gone to Sandra under the will in both 2008 and 2011.

He said they were not properly informed about what they could do and that they believed they could manage her money in the way they believed she would want, spending the money to reduce inheritance tax.

He added that there were entirely explicable reasons why Jeanne changed her will in favor of her daughter and son-in-law, who cared for her in her old age.

This included Gary’s sense of how wealthy he was as the owner of the family business, and perhaps his mother’s “resentment” at him for his “harsh words in the office” and his “infidelity in the marriage.”

But giving evidence, Gary denied a “very brief fling” years ago was behind his mother’s decision to change her will and told the judge he would have given her “both kegs” if his mother had been truly angry.

Sentencing the case, Judge Rushton found that Jeanne’s 2011 will was not tainted by undue influence or mental frailty.

“Jeanne was really grateful to Sandra and Philip for their home and the support they gave her,” she said.

“It’s no surprise that he wanted to express his generous nature by rewarding them.”

But it ruled that Sandra and Philip’s actions over the years had depleted the value of the estate, which should have included property gifted to the couple in 2008 and the money they spent on it.

He discovered that the transfer of a £400,000 holiday home in Peacehaven, East Sussex, and two flats worth around £1.2 million in Ealing, west London, was the result of their “undue influence” on him.

“In my view, the most likely explanation for Peacehaven’s transfer is that Philip and Sandra persuaded Jeanne to do it, possibly over a long period of time, and that the reasons such as Gary already having a holiday home in Cyprus or being ‘bored enough’ with the job were the reasons they used to win her over rather than Jeanne,” he said.

“It is also in the nature of overreach to work in the shadows.

“To me, the Peacehaven transaction marked the beginning of a very different pattern: transactions that favored Philip and Sandra and their family over Gary and his family, starting out inconspicuously but becoming increasingly shameless over time.

“This was a pattern of amassing power in a way that, in my view, was more indicative of greed and a sense of entitlement on the part of Philip and Sandra than of Jeanne’s choices and efforts to ensure equality among her children.”

He said the same effect resulted in the transfer of two flats in Ealing to the couple and found that they had breached their duties under the power of attorney by spending Jeanne’s money on themselves.

“I understand that the sums spent through them totaled in excess of £1 million, but I made no attempt to collect them,” he said.

“Mr Martin argues that the properties were sold for cash, the proceeds paid into accounts and then used not only for ordinary living expenses but also for more extravagant expenses such as cars, holidays, two weddings, university fees for Sandra and Philip’s children and many cash withdrawals.

“Whilst Philip denied that such a pattern existed on cross-examination, I consider that such a pattern is the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from looking at their bank statements, especially given that Philip and Sandra’s only other apparent source of income was the rent they received from their other properties.

“Excuses given for breach of duty do not make any difference. Their ignorance of their duties is not a defence.

“In any event, the LPA on its face explained what its duties were. They had many opportunities to clarify the situation and seek advice, but they did not do so. This was a deliberate abuse motivated by greed, for which there is no excuse.”

“There was a clear cycle of emptying Jeanne’s bank accounts, becoming aware of an asset that would bring in more cash, and then repeating the process again.

“There was no thought about how to pay for Jeanne’s care, and when she died she had almost no money left.”

The effect of the judge’s decision is that the 2011 ruling will stand, with Sandra and Philip receiving the property owned by Jeanne at her death and Sandra inheriting the money in her accounts.

But the previously almost worthless “leftover” of the property, half of which Gary got, will now be worth around £1.6 million, along with the Peacehaven holiday home and flats in Ealing, and the couple will have to answer for the money they received, thought to be over £1 million.

He said the money the couple spent would need to be accounted for to determine how much they should pay to the estate as compensation, which would then be split with Gary.

The exact value of the multimillion-pound estate still needs to be calculated, but Sandra and Phillip will receive at least double the £1.3 million Gary was expecting under the approved will.

The judge rejected Gary’s claim that Sandra and Philip wrongly influenced Jeanne to spend £500,000 on improvements to their home when she moved in.