‘Greedy’ daughter loses court battle with builder brother over mother’s £5m fortune after she ‘frittered away’ inheritance on meals at The Ivy and he was left with ‘almost nothing’

A ‘Greedy and entitled’ daughter has lost a court battle with her brother over her mother’s fortune after he ‘wasted’ her money on meals at the Ivy, leaving her with ‘almost nothing’.

Sandra Thomas, 65, was ordered to repay £2.6 million to the late Jeanne MacDougall’s estate after she and her husband Lloyd, known as Philip, raided their bank accounts.

The couple’s excessive spending meant that they had almost no money left when he died, leaving his 70-year-old son Gary MacDougall with ‘zero’.

In the case, Mr MacDougall failed to convince the judge that he was not in his right mind when he excluded Ms MacDougall from his last will in 2011.

He denied making the decision out of embarrassment after cheating on his wife and having an affair with a local council worker.

Under the will, the Thomases will receive property owned by Ms. MacDougall at her death, and Ms. Thomas will inherit cash from their accounts.

But Mr MacDougall will receive the remaining half of the property, worth more than £1 million the couple received from his mother, and three properties they ‘unduly influenced’ Mrs MacDougall into transferring to them.

The judge said the Peacehaven holiday home and two Ealing flats worth £1.6 million were given only because the Thomases had persuaded them to do so.

Judge Nicola Rushton KC ruled that Ms Thomas and her husband, out of ‘greed’, had made an ‘extensive and wholesale’ use of Ms MacDougall’s money as a personal piggy bank and used her accounts ‘as if they were their own’.

‘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 belonged to them, without regard to any fiduciary duties or even familial obligations to Jeanne.’

Gary MacDougall will inherit around £1.3 million after the money is repaid

The death of multimillionaire property tycoon Jeanne MacDougall has sparked a bitter battle between her son and daughter over her fortune

During the hearing in February, the judge heard the MacDougall family fortune came from the ‘significant property portfolio’ of the brothers’ property developer father, Alec MacDougall.

He bought, renovated and let properties in the Acton and Ealing areas of west London and made a significant profit.

Lawyer Harry Martin claimed the two siblings were made clear by their parents that they would receive ‘generally equal financial treatment and inheritance’, according to Mr MacDougall.

The lawyer said his father had even told Mr MacDougall that he would not need a significant pension because he would inherit property on which he would live in retirement.

Following Alec’s death, Ms MacDougall made a will in 2008, which Mr Martin said meant a ‘generally equal’ division between her son, his parents, his daughter and his son-in-law.

Mr MacDougall and his family would receive property in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while Mrs Thomas would receive houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens and most of the money in their bank accounts.

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

Mr Martin said the brothers would then split what was left, but because of the costs and expenses of administering the estate it would “likely be worth nothing”.

Builder Mr MacDougall claimed the 2011 will was invalid because his mother had ‘lost almost all of her independence’ by then.

He said the pensioner also did not have the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when he signed the will and did not fully understand its impact.

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

This included spending money on meals at The Ivy, holidays, new cars, shopping trips and their daughter’s wedding at the Savoy, she said.

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

Judge calls Sarah Thomas ‘greedy’ and ‘entitled’ and will now have to pay nearly £2.6million to her mother’s estate

But he said this was actually ‘an advance on his estate’ because most of his money was transferred to Mrs Thomas under both the 2008 and 2011 wills.

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 Mrs MacDougall had changed her will in favor of her daughter and son-in-law, who cared for her in her old age.

This included a sense of how wealthy Mr. MacDougall 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 his marriage.”

But giving evidence, Mr MacDougall 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 barrels” if his mother had been truly angry.

Giving his ruling on the case, Judge Rushton found that Ms MacDougall’s 2011 will was not tainted by undue influence or mental infirmity.

‘Jeanne was really grateful to Sandra and Philip for the house and the support they gave her,’ she said.

‘It’s no surprise that he wants to express his generous nature by rewarding them.’

But it ruled that their actions depleted the value of the estate, which should have included property gifted to the couple in 2008 and the money they spent.

He found that the transfer of a £400,000 holiday home in Peacehaven, East Sussex, and two flats in Ealing, west London, worth around £1.2 million, 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 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 him over, rather than Jeanne,’ he said.

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

‘In my view the Peacehaven transaction marked the beginning of a quite different pattern: transactions that favored Philip and Sandra and their family over Gary and his family, which began inconspicuously but became 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 the choices and efforts Jeanne made to ensure equality between 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 Ms MacDougall’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 suggests that 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.

‘Although Philip denied on cross-examination that there was any such pattern, 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.

‘The excuses offered for this breach of duty make no difference. Ignorance of their duties is not a defence.

‘In any case, the LPA explained on its face what the duties were. They had ample opportunity to clarify the situation and seek advice, but they did not. This was 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 given to how to pay for Jeanne’s care and when she died she had almost no money left.’

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 the Thomases will still 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.