Daughters of forest recluse Michael Gwilliam win £1m inheritance battle against ‘domineering’ aunt
Four daughters have successfully challenged their “bossy” aunt in court for the £1 million inheritance of their eccentric father, described as the “son of the forest”.
Michael Gwilliam, who died in February 2022 aged 79, spent almost all of his life in Gloucestershire’s “rustic, ancient and somewhat secluded” Forest of Dean.
He was a farmer and antique dealer and was known for his passion for restoring classic cars. He was described in court as a “true son of the Forest of Dean”, an eccentric but popular local figure who “lived in his overalls and boots”.
His relationship with his daughters was “harmonious” until 2013. But after he turned 71, Mr Gwilliam’s mental health deteriorated rapidly. He came to believe that he was “under siege” in his rural home and developed irrational suspicions about his neighbors and even his own four children.
The court heard that he had never prepared a will, understanding that his significant fortune, estimated by lawyers to be up to £1 million, would automatically pass to his daughters under intestacy rules.
But after his death, his four daughters – Helen Ginger, Georgina Charles, Emily Gwilliam and Caroline Gwilliam – were shocked to learn that he had drawn up a will in 2014 that left them only 25 per cent of his estate.
Their aunt, vintage clothing store owner Sheila Gwilliam, 81, described by Caroline as “bossy”, was given a 25 per cent share in her own right; 15 per cent was given to his son Robert Mickleburgh, another 25 per cent to Mr Gwilliam’s former partner and friend Joan Brooks, and the remainder was divided among other relatives.
Attached to Mr Gwilliam’s 2014 will was a devastating “letter of wishes” explaining his reasons for leaving only part of his inheritance to his children; He claimed they dismembered him and “conspired to pillage my home and steal prints, porcelain and antiques.”
The daughters then went to court to annul the will, claiming that their father was of unsound mind and that their aunts Sheila and Joan had tried to persuade him to disinherit them.
Following a hearing at the High Court in Bristol, Judge Leslie Blohm KC ruled in their favour, finding that Mr Gwilliam had suffered a “mad delusion”, possibly resulting from a stroke while the will was being prepared.
“Michael’s medical records … show that he had a brain disorder, possibly a stroke,” the judge said.
“Unless there is a defect in the brain, it is difficult to explain such a negative view towards children.
“The cause of these delusions was late-onset schizophrenia resulting from organic disorder in the brain.
“I think that if Michael had not suffered from such wild delusions, he would never have made a will, both because he wished for equal benefit to all his daughters and because he did not like the idea of making a will.
“I have concluded that both Sheila and Joan intended to persuade Michael to draw up a less advantageous will for their children.
“I think it is likely, but without Sheila and Joan’s intervention Michael would not have actually made a will at all.
“Michael’s alleged will is invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity.”
The court heard that Mr Gwilliam’s relationship with his children was good until 2013, but after that point his mental health deteriorated and he began to harbor suspicions about his daughters and some neighbors in the secluded Gloucestershire village of Awre, near the banks of the River Severn.
In February 2014, when he was temporarily suspended due to concerns that he was building an air rifle at home “to show that he could defend himself if necessary” and his apparent “tyrannical and paranoid thoughts”, he accused his daughters of “imprisoning him for their own mercenary purposes”.
The judge said that during this period Joan told Mr Gwilliam that senior nurse Helen was “bad” and that they wanted to sell their daughter’s farm in the village “for their own benefit”.
But Sheila and Mrs Brooks denied that Michael was “delusional at any time” and claimed his will was valid, insisting their suspicions about their daughter were well-founded.
The judge noted the evidence of a witness who testified about Michael’s state of mind in the year he made his will, describing him as “trembling, frightened and timid”; He was complaining about a dead neighbor harassing him, his cars being vandalized, and that he believed he was “under siege at home.”
The court heard Mr Gwilliam had a “close and loving” relationship with his children for most of his life, and until 2014 he consistently refused to make a will because he believed his four daughters “would inherit anyway”.
Judge Blohm found that both Sheila Gwilliam and Ms. Brook made a series of derogatory statements about their daughter to Mr. Gwilliam “in an attempt to persuade Michael to draft a less advantageous will for their daughter.”
The judge noted that they were both present when Mr Gwilliam’s will was prepared by lawyers, and added: “Although I think it was Sheila who caused Michael to make his will, it is clear that Joan was a partner in this.”
But the judge said the women genuinely believed Mr Gwilliam’s “concerns were realistically based” about his daughters.
The two women alleged that the sisters “took advantage of the opportunity to falsely present Michael to mental health professionals in order to dismember him in order to seize his property and control his life for their own greedy financial interests.”
When Mr. Gwilliam died, relations became so cold that Sheila forbade her daughters from attending their father’s funeral in Bath, near Sheila’s home, and instead the sisters held a local memorial service for him.
The sisters filed a “fraudulent libel” lawsuit against their aunt, focusing on a series of knowingly false statements made by their aunt, including allegations that they stole items from their father’s home while he was locked up, that their aunt conspired against them, and that Helen had her father imprisoned.
Sheila, who took Mr Gwilliam to her home in Bath when he could no longer manage on his own, admitted making the statements but denied believing them to be false.
Ms Brook was also accused of fraud for a series of statements, including telling Mr Gwilliam that his daughter was a bad person.
The sisters’ lawyer, Joss Knight, argued that Mrs Brook “tried to exclude Michael from her daughters in an attempt to persuade him to honor a will”.
Judge Blohm found that Ms Brook told Mr Gwilliam that their daughter was “all bad news”, that Mr Gwilliam told him that Helen was a bad person and that Helen “wanted all her money”.
But he dismissed the fraudulent libel suit against both him and Joan, even though he said he was motivated by a desire to prevent Sheila specifically from inheriting the four siblings.
He did so on the basis that in 2014 both women genuinely believed the sisters were trying to divide Mr Gwilliam “for their own financial gain”.
He concluded: “In my opinion, these statements were made with the aim of encouraging Michael to draw up a will that would disinherit his daughters.
“I have no doubt that Joan, and especially Sheila, thought that the plaintiffs did not deserve to inherit and that their purpose in making these statements to Michael was to persuade him to use his assets in a way that would prevent his children from benefiting from them.”
In his ruling, the judge found that Mr Gwilliam’s daughters did not want him to be sectioned, but felt it was in his “best interests” and that he should be “treated and assisted appropriately”.
“Michael’s daughters were acting in what they thought was in Michael’s best interest,” he added. “This is the opposite of being bad, mercenary, or bad news.”
The judge’s ruling that Mr Gwilliam died without a valid will means his fortune, estimated by lawyers to be up to £1 million, will be inherited by his four daughters, his next of kin.
