Daughter left just £250 in dad’s will wins court fight to share his £600k fortune with sister
A daughter who left just £250 in her father’s will after accusations that he was “bad-tempered” has won a lawsuit to share her father’s £600,000 fortune.
Laxmikant Patel, who died in October 2021 aged 85, transferred his house worth £600,000 to his eldest daughter Anju Patel in his last will; He left only £250 to his younger daughter Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, and his son Piyush Patel, 62.
Anju, 58, claimed that her father’s harsh decision to disinherit his two children could be explained by the growing distrust he had developed towards them because “they were only after his property”.
He said Laxmikant had complained that Bhavenetta and Piyush had failed to show him “genuine affection” and when asked to explain why he left something to them, he replied: “They have failed in their sense of duty, but as a father I have not forgotten them”.
He was also said to have labeled his son Piyush as an “extremely controlling” figure and complained about Bhavenetta’s “evil temper”.
But Laxmikant’s final will in August 2021 came under attack in London’s High Court, with Bhavenetta claiming a “cloud of doubt” hung over the way the will was prepared and executed – it was made just two months before the man’s death while he was terminally ill, frail and in hospital subject to Covid restrictions.
His previous will in 2019 had left Anju £50,000; The rest of the property was divided 33 percent to each of the children and 1 percent to a charity run by Anju.
After hearing the evidence and legal arguments on both sides, Deputy Master Jason Raeburn ruled in Bhavenetta’s favor, approving the 2019 will while declaring the 2021 terms would be “highly questionable.”
He said the hospital bed will was flawed on several grounds, including that it “lacked due execution” because there was no evidence that the witnesses to the will signed the document at the same time, with the same pen.
The court heard Laxmikant was a kind and hard-working man who built a new life for his family after emigrating from Uganda in the early 1970s, working shifts at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham while his wife Shardaben managed a newsagents.
A deeply religious man, Laxmikant attended the Swaminarayan temple in Neasden, north London, every day, and he and his wife donated around £180,000 to the temple during their lifetimes.
When he died in 2021, his main asset was his £600,000 house in Cambridge Road, Harrow.
That house was left entirely to Anju, in a decision Bhavenetta’s lawyer Tim Sherwin described as “very strange.”
Claiming that Anju, a Hare Krishna follower, had done all she could to alienate her father from the conventional Swaminarayan faith, he told the judge: “The evidence…shows a clear pattern of isolation and control over the deceased by Anju and (her husband), which became particularly harsh when he was in hospital at the end of his life – when, of course, the so-called 2021 will was prepared.”
Bhavenetta’s legal team argued that the change of heart made no sense, given Laxmikant’s clear desire in previous 2019 and 2018 wills to split his assets predominantly equally.
And his lawyer has urged the judge to rule the 2021 will invalid because it was not properly executed and because Laxmikant, who struggles with the English language, “did not know or approve” of the terms of the will.
Bhavenetta had claimed that Anju’s relationship with their father was largely “broken” by 2018, but from 2019 onwards, she became more involved in his affairs until she started “controlling the deceased’s access”.
But Anju insisted she always had a “close and loving relationship” with her parents, telling the court: “I wasn’t estranged from my family, I was with my sister. She chose to estrange herself from me.”
And his lawyer, James Kane, argued that Laxmikant had formed a “decidedly negative” view of both Piyush and Bhavenetta as of October 2019, citing claims made to the will writer in 2019 that Bhavenetta had “taken great advantage of her father” while Anju remained “the only light in his life”.
“She seems to have a bad temper,” the testator said of Bhavenetta.
Defending the 2021 will, Anju had claimed that her father gave instructions for the will to Vijaykant Patel, whom he knew from the Hare Krishna temple and also claimed to be his father’s friend, and that Vijaykant came to visit his bed at Northwick Hospital in London and Laxmikant asked him to help him prepare the will document.
Vijaykant, the executor of the 2021 will, claimed that he took notes in the hospital meeting; While Laxmikant expressed his “disgust” towards Bhavenetta and Piyush, he stated that the duo was “only after her property” and “everything goes to Anju”.
Challenging the validity of the 2021 will, Bhavenetta’s lawyers said these instructions were “completely contrary to the decedent’s wishes expressed in the previous wills of 2018 and 2019.”
Finding that the hospital bed will from 2021 was not properly witnessed, the judge said: “Both witnesses said that they used the same pen as the deceased, but it is clear from the will that the will was not signed using the same pen by all participating parties.
“Therefore, I am not satisfied that the signature was made by him (Laxmikant) in the presence of all the witnesses at the same time and therefore the will was not properly executed.”
Master Raeburn said this finding would be sufficient to overrule Anju’s defence, but beyond that there was no convincing evidence that Laxmikant “knew about and approved” the 2021 will.
“The specific circumstances of the instructions and the execution of the 2021 will are suspicious, extremely suspicious,” he commented.
“The deceased was seriously ill, had been in hospital and had recently been diagnosed with terminal cancer. He was due to be discharged from hospital shortly but did not wait until he returned home to make his 2021 will.”
Laxmikant’s knowledge of written English was also at a “basic” level, which could have prevented him from understanding the document he was signing.
The judge continued: “Instead of relying on the services of lawyers or professional will writers he had previously used, he resorted to the services of Vijaykant, whose relationship to the deceased was unclear.
“However, Vijaykant was known to Anju, who was known to be in the hospital at that time.”
The judge noted that the 2021 document was a significant change from previous neutral wills prepared by Laxmikant: “A particular feature was that two of his three children were effectively disinherited.
“I have come to the clear conclusion that it will not alleviate the burden of establishing that those who put forward the 2021 will knew and approved of its contents,” he added, before revoking the 2021 will and reinstating Laxmikant’s previous 2019 will, allowing his three children to share his fortune on roughly equal terms.
