Huge court bill for daughter sued by little sister over £250 snub in dad’s will
A girl whose “bad-tempered” younger sister was sued after only £250 was left in her father’s will has been left facing a bill of more than £400,000 after losing in court.
Anju Patel was left with nothing after inheriting almost all of her father Laxmikant Patel’s £600,000 fortune in his will after being crushed by her younger sister Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown in court.
Laxmikant, who died in October 2021 at the age of 85, transferred his house worth £600,000 to his eldest daughter Anju in his last will, leaving 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”.
But the August 2021 will came under attack in London’s High Court, with Bhavenetta claiming a “cloud of doubt” hung over the way it was drawn up and executed just two months before the old man’s death, when he was terminally ill, frail and in hospital subject to Covid restrictions.
.jpg)
Deputy Master Jason Raeburn ruled in favor of Bhavenetta last December, approving the roughly three-way division of the £600,000 inheritance between the siblings in 2019 and declaring the circumstances in 2021 would be “highly questionable”.
Now Anju has filed an order that in addition to losing almost two-thirds of her inheritance, she is also liable to pay her sister’s court costs related to the fight; This leaves Anju facing a bill that lawyers say could be over £400,000, as well as her own undisclosed legal costs.
Vijaykant Patel, the executor of the 2021 will, was also made jointly and severally liable to pay Bhavenetta’s expenses.
However, the decision means the court costs will be completely wiped out of the approximately £250,000 Anju was entitled to under the will approved in 2019.
During the hearing, the court heard that Laxmikant’s 2019 will left £50,000 to Anju, with the remainder of the estate divided between 33 per cent shares to each of the children and one per cent to a charity run by Anju.
However, in the document prepared in 2021, almost everything was left to Anju and only £250 was given to her two siblings.
At the hearing, Anju explained the move by saying that judge Laxmikant had complained that Bhavenetta and Piyush did not show “real affection” to her, and when asked to explain why she had left them something, she replied: “they have failed in the 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” and taking “huge advantage” of her elderly father.
.jpg)
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.
Anju’s lawyer, James Kane, argued that as of October 2019, Laxmikant had formed a “decidedly negative” view of both Piyush and Bhavenetta, and claimed that Anju remained “the only light in his life”, citing his claims to the will writer in 2019 that Bhavenetta “took great advantage of her father”.
“She seems to have a bad temper,” the testator said of Bhavenetta.
Anju claimed that her father gave the will instructions to Vijaykant Patel, whom she knew from the Hare Krishna temple and who also claimed to be her father’s friend, and that Vijaykant came to visit her bed at Northwick Hospital in London and Laxmikant asked her to help him prepare the will document.
.jpeg)
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”.
Finding that the 2021 hospital bed will was not properly witnessed, the judge made the following statement: “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.”
The judge also found 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 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.
At the next hearing this week, he ordered that Anju and Vijaykant be jointly liable to pay Bhavenetta’s costs of fighting the case; Mr Sherwin said that with VAT added it amounted to £380,000, bringing the total bill to over £450,000; this was almost double the amount Anju should have received under the 2019 will.
He will also have to pay his own lawyers, but no figures for his own bill emerged during the hearing.
Mr Kane also asked the judge for permission to appeal his decision on Anju’s behalf but was refused.
The judge also awarded an advance payment of approximately £180,000 plus VAT for costs.
