Charity shop worker disinherited after mum accused him of trying to murder brother wins £600k will fight

A charity volunteer who was disinherited after being convinced her mother was trying to kill her “black sheep” brother has won a High Court case to share her £600,000 fortune.

Retired electrician Richard Dalton, 68, was to share his mother Peggy Dalton’s estate with his brother Robert, who called him a “disgrace of the family”, and one of his nephews before dramatically changing his will shortly before his death in 2021.

After telling will writers that Richard had stolen £100,000 from him and tried to kill his brother, the frail 93-year-old drafted a new will in November 2020, leaving almost all of his £600,000 estate to Robert, 67, and his wife Carly.

But Richard sued, claiming that Robert and Carly, who had moved in with Peggy and “isolated” her from the rest of the family, were behind her mother’s “false beliefs”, lying to her about the fictional murder attempt in an attempt to “force” her to draw up a new will in their favor.

Last week the case went to the High Court, where the judge, Master Katherine McQuail, ruled in Richard’s favour, reinstating a previous 2018 will in which he received a one-third share worth around £200,000.

In passing judgment, he found that Peggy’s dementia had left her mentally incapable of making a valid will, and that the resulting will was “the product of their wishes, not hers”, as they were completely dependent on Robert and Carly, isolated and working under their “undue influence” after they moved out.

He added that his mistaken belief that Richard allegedly intended to kill Robert stemmed either from his misunderstanding of the situation while suffering from dementia or from “false beliefs” placed in his head by his “black sheep” son and his wife.

It almost wiped out Robert’s share of the inheritance under his valid 2018 will, billing the Surrey couple who did not show up for £190,000 for Richard’s lawyers’ costs.

The court heard Peggy Dalton married her late husband William when she was 30, had four children, and brothers Richard, Robert and David and sister Christine worked as a cleaner when they were young.

William was in a devastating car accident that left him brain damaged, and Peggy cared for him for years until his death in 2008.

After losing two children (Christine in 2015 and David in 2018), her £600,000 estate, largely consisting of her home in South Godstone, Surrey, was to be divided between her surviving sons Richard and Robert and grandson Vincent under a 2018 will.

However, his November 2020 will – aged 94, just four months before his death in March 2021 – was a “radical departure” from this; Reigate completely cut out Richard of Surrey and left almost everything he had to Robert and Carly.

Recordings of a conversation with the writers of the will revealed that Richard explained his decision by saying that he had stolen from him and that he had been charged with attempted murder after attacking his brother when challenged.

The case reached court after Richard, who is now retired and works as a volunteer for a children’s charity, accused his brother and sister-in-law of planting false beliefs in his mother’s mind to “force” her to make a new will for her mother, who has dementia.

His lawyer Julian Reed told the court Robert and Carly had not been in a relationship with Peggy for some time before she moved into Peggy’s home in early 2020, and Robert called her a “disgrace to the family”.

A power of attorney was drawn up immediately after they moved into the house; This power of attorney enabled Robert to take control of the property affairs; The sick retiree was also isolated from family and medical professionals.

“This move, between the nine and 11 months before the 2020 will was signed, gave Robert and Carly time to force the deceased to prepare a suitable will for them,” the lawyer said.

“Once on the decedent’s property, he was isolated from both family members and healthcare professionals. Family members were no longer able to participate in administering the decedent’s medications, nor were social workers allowed to meet with the decedent.”

The new will will distribute £10,000 to each of the six grandchildren and split the rest between Robert and Carly, while Richard will be disinherited entirely.

But Mr Reed, who opposed the will, said it was made at a time when Peggy was dependent on her son and daughter-in-law and had dementia.

She told the judge about the will writers’ note in which Peggy said Richard had stolen £100,000 from her and was charged with attempted murder after attacking Robert.

“This passage raises serious concerns because various concerns from social services indicate that it was Robert who took money from the deceased and that he had a drug habit,” the lawyer said.

“This suggests either the deceased’s confusion or the defendants Robert and Carly exerting undue influence over him. Richard did not steal £100,000 from the deceased.”

He told the judge that after Robert challenged Richard to use their mother’s car, Richard became angry and drove the car in his brother’s direction, an incident that led to a dangerous driving conviction.

“The deceased was not present during the incident between Richard and Robert,” Mr Reed said.

“The deceased would thus only have learned of the incident from Robert or possibly Carly, given his isolation.

“Richard was never charged with attempted murder. The fact that the deceased believed he was charged suggests that Robert made a false statement of events or lacked the capacity to understand and retain information.

“The only logical reason for Robert to make a false statement about the deceased would have been to unduly influence him against Richard for his own gain.”

He said all the evidence pointed to “pressure” being used to get Robert and Carly to prepare a will “for their own benefit”.

“It would have been very easy for them to push him,” he said.

“He was separated from his family, separated from social services, separated from medical professionals and dependent on Robert and Carly.

“They had control of the credit cards at that point and were spreading misinformation that Richard was trying to kill Robert.

“All these factors suggest that there was undue influence in relation to this will.”

He said there was evidence that Peggy already had dementia before Robert and Carly moved into Peggy’s home at the beginning of the Covid-19 outbreak.

Less than a month after the will was executed, he was hospitalized and was said to have “fairly advanced” dementia when he was discharged to a care home shortly afterwards.

If he had been in such poor shape when he entered the care home in February 2021, it is unlikely he would have been healthy enough to draw up a new will three months earlier.

The solicitor said Robert and Carly had instructed solicitors when Richard’s case was first presented to the court, but had since failed to appear and attend the hearing.

Giving the verdict at the end of the one-day hearing, Master McQuail said Peggy’s apparent belief that Richard was trying to kill Robert “had no basis in fact”.

“Peggy either came to believe this because she was told by Robert or Carly, or she independently erroneously came to this erroneous belief,” he said.

“In any event, this calls into question his state of mind, his understanding of the circumstances of making a will and therefore his understanding of the process of making a will.”

As of November 2020, when the will was prepared, Peggy was in a state of mental decline due to dementia and was unable to fully understand the situation, he continued.

“In my judgment, in late 2020 the deceased failed to understand or appreciate the documents he was required to put into effect due to his misunderstanding of matters or misplaced information about what transpired between Richard and Robert and Richard’s apparent attempt to murder his brother.” he said.

He declared the will invalid for lack of proper execution, lack of testamentary capacity, and lack of knowledge and consent, and also found “undue influence” by Robert and Carly.

“They moved in with the deceased in early 2020 and socially isolated him from family members and medical professionals,” he said.

Both Robert and Carly were present when the directions for the will were given, and although the writer said Peggy was “not under duress”, the judge said it carried no weight.

“I am not comforted by Peggy’s note saying she was not under duress,” he said, noting that there was no indication he discussed the issue with Peggy alone.

The judge also said he did not examine whether detailed medical evidence would need to be collected to assess whether Peggy was mentally capable of making a will.

“I cannot give any credibility to his ability to assess whether there was pressure or influence of an inappropriate kind,” he continued.

“There is a range of concerns expressed in court papers by social care professionals and Peggy’s family members about her involvement in Robert and Carly’s financial affairs.

“His health and medical capacity deteriorated and diminished towards the end of 2020, and I conclude that his will was subsumed by Robert and Carly and that the will was the product of their wishes, not his.”

He added: “If the will had been properly executed and the deceased had capacity at the time, the will would still have been invalid due to undue influence.”

The judge then confirmed the validity of the previous 2018 will and ruled that Robert and Carly, who still live at Peggy’s home, must pay Richard’s legal bill, estimated at around £190,000.

If they cannot cover the cost bill from their current financial situation, this cash will come out of Robert’s estate.

Speaking later, Richard said his mother was a “very special individual” who, despite losing her husband and two children, “always found a reason to smile”.

“He never judged anyone and always did the right thing,” he said. “We hope you’ll be proud of us for sticking to it all the way.”