Millionaire mum ‘cut her son out of her will after he cheated on his wife’

A builder has ‘almost nothing left’ of his mother’s £5million fortune because he is ‘ashamed’ of cheating on his wife, a court heard.

Gary MacDougall, 70, expected his multimillionaire mother Jeanne MacDougall’s estate to be divided between him, his sister Sandra Thomas, 65, and her husband Lloyd ‘Philip’ Thomas.

But following an amendment to his will in 2011 and a series of estate sales and gifts, Mr MacDougall was left with “nothing” when the matriarch died in April 2020.

He is now suing his sister and brother-in-law in the High Court, accusing them of plundering £1.685 million of his mother’s money while she was alive.

In court this week, Mr MacDougall was forced to deny his mother had a reason to disable him; This includes his shame over cheating on his wife, Anna, with a local council worker.

Her sister’s lawyers said Jeanne was ‘disappointed’ and ‘ashamed’ of her son as a member of an older, more traditional generation.

They said Mr MacDougall supported his wife during her infidelity and may have excluded her from the will after ‘reflecting’ on her actions.

But Mr MacDougall denied he was disinherited because of the affair and told the judge his ‘sharp’ mother would have given him ‘both barrels’ if she was really that angry at him.

She also claims Mr and Mrs Thomas exercised ‘undue influence’ over Jeanne when she was not mentally capable of securing a £1.7million house gifted to her.

Judge Nicola Rushton KC heard the MacDougall family’s wealth stemmed from the ‘significant property portfolio’ of the brothers’ property developer father Alec MacDougall.

The death of multimillionaire real estate mogul Jeanne MacDougall has sparked a bitter battle between her son and daughter over her fortune; This situation is currently being discussed in court

A new will was prepared in 2011; Under this will all four properties were given to his sister Sarah Thomas (pictured) and her brother-in-law, leaving Mr MacDougall with ‘virtually nothing’.

Development properties have been purchased, renovated and let, mostly in the Acton and Ealing areas of West London, making significant profits.

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

This included his father insisting to Mr MacDougall that he would not need a significant pension because he would inherit property on which he would live in retirement, the lawyer said.

Following their father’s death, the brothers’ mother prepared a will in 2008; Mr Martin said this meant a ‘generally equal’ split between his son and his family on the one hand, and his daughter and son-in-law on the other.

Under this will, Mr MacDougall and his family would receive property in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while his sister and brother-in-law would receive houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens and most of the money in their bank accounts.

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

Mr Martin, Mr MacDougall and Ms Thomas say they will split the small remaining amount, but that it will ‘likely be worth nothing’ due to the costs and expenses of administering the estate.

Mr MacDougall, who works with his mother in the family business, claims the will was invalid because of the influence Mrs Thomas and her husband had on their mother, who had by then ‘lost almost all of her independence’.

He also alleges that the pensioner did not have the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when he signed the will and that it was signed at a time when he was elderly and dependent on his sister and brother-in-law and did not fully understand the impact of this.

Mr MacDougall expected he and his family to split his multimillionaire mother’s inheritance with his sister’s husband Lloyd ‘Philip’ Thomas (pictured)

Mr MacDougall is also objecting to the gift of the £1.7 million house given to Mrs Thomas and her husband in 2015.

He objects to the gift of the £1.7 million Avenue Crescent house he was promised to Mrs Thomas and her husband in 2015, but it was made at a time when her mother did not have the capacity to do so. His sister values ​​it at less than £1 million.

Mr MacDougall is also claiming a share of approximately £1.685 million of his mother’s money; This money, he said, had been ‘unfairly used’ from his mother’s bank accounts before his death and was spent by his sister and brother-in-law on themselves and their families.

The money went to meals at the Ivy, holidays, new cars, shopping trips, their daughter’s wedding at the Savoy and other things, she says.

But for the now estranged couple, Alexander Learmonth KC rejected the suggestion that they had exerted any undue influence and that their mother was unable to make a valid will as there were no signs of trouble other than occasional absent-mindedness.

And he told the judge that there were entirely explicable reasons why he had changed his will in favor of his daughter and son-in-law, who cared for him in his old age.

He told the judge: ‘Like all testators, Jeanne had a variety of reasons for wanting to make a new will on her own terms.

‘To some extent there may be speculation as to what these were, and the court need not tolerate that, but they certainly included a sense of how well-off Gary was and gratitude for the time and care Philip and Sandra gave him.

‘These may also include growing resentment towards Gary over his marital infidelity, harsh words at the office, infrequent visits, or some other reason.

‘It certainly cannot be said that the 2011 will was in any way unreasonable.’

Cross-examining Mr MacDougall in the witness box, the barrister said his mother had been disappointed in him when he was admitted to having an affair with a council employee in 2008.

‘Your mother wasn’t happy with you because you were from the older generation and loved your wife very much, was she?’ he told Mr. MacDougall. ‘He’s very disappointed in what you did.’

‘He wasn’t happy, no, he was very happy when it turned out,’ he replied, adding: ‘He reminded me of my responsibilities, but it was a very short fling. If he had been angry with me, my mother would have told me. “He would give me both barrels.”

He insisted that the fact that this relationship occurred before his mother made him their ‘general equal’ would indicate that his infidelity in 2008 did not influence the mother’s decisions.

But Mr Learmonth, who suggested his mother may have been ‘thinking’ about the issue for some time, said: ‘Just because you don’t act with a purpose at one point doesn’t mean it isn’t still valid at a later time.’

There was a difference between the pensioner’s relationships with his two children, which he described as ‘abusive’ with Mr MacDougall, particularly in the office at work.

“Jeanne was always very close to her daughter Sandra – ‘joined at the hip’, Mr MacDougall said – and was also very fond of her son-in-law Philip,” he told the judge.

In preparing his final will, he was also conscious of the benefits already enjoyed by Mr. MacDougall, who eventually became the sole owner of the family business.

The lawyer said he had acquired “huge assets” and now owned “a significant portfolio of rental properties, as well as a holiday home in Cyprus and a pasture house in the countryside.”

Mr MacDougall insisted his success was down to his ‘indoctrination’ while his sister and brother-in-law lived the ‘luxurious life’, adding: ‘Where is the reward?’

His lawyer, Mr Martin, said the former couple ‘withdrawn significant sums’ from the mother’s accounts and ‘misappropriated’ almost £1.7 million between 2012 and 2020 while they had power of attorney over her.

Their lawyer, Mr Learmonth, said they had agreed to exceed their duties under the power of attorney by spending the money on themselves and their families.

But he said this was actually ‘an advance on his estate’ because most of his money had already been transferred to Ms 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 handle it the way they believed she would want by spending her money to reduce her inheritance tax.

‘Most importantly, Jeanne never suffered because of it; “He always enjoyed every comfort,” he said. ‘Whichever was true, it was no problem for Gary.’

Mr Martin said the will only gave Ms Thomas the money in her accounts and that it was not in those accounts when her mother died because it had been spent.

He said Mr MacDougall should receive half the value of the sum received, as his mother would have a claim against the couple for that sum during her lifetime, which would then pass into her remaining estate to be divided between herself and her sister.

Their mother’s fortune was valued at £2.5 million when she died, but Mr MacDougall says the figure would have been over £5 million if not for the £1.685 million that was ‘misallocated’ and other property transferred from her estate before her death.

The trial continues.