Mum of two left with nothing in her absent millionaire dad’s will takes stepmother to court for payout
A mother of two who is surviving on benefits after her millionaire father left her with nothing in his will is fighting with her stepmother to get a payment from her £1.75 million inheritance.
Emma McDaniel’s father, Mark Talbot, left her life when she was only eight months old and became a millionaire with his real estate investments and successful businesses.
When he made his last will in 2014, he specifically excluded her, saying he had not seen her for 20 years and had no contact.
But five years later in 2019, the two met and belatedly developed a “close” relationship that lasted until his death in October 2022.
Emma, 40, who has two disabled children and her own health problems, runs a business but earns a salary of just £5,000 a year, relying on a “complex cocktail of benefits” to survive.
She is now suing Rosemary Talbot, the wife of Mr Talbot’s father, who left his entire fortune in his will, claiming she should be given a payment as “reasonable consideration” from her father’s seven-figure estate.
London’s High Court heard Mr Talbot left Emma’s mother in 1985 when she was just eight months old and never met Emma’s brother Rhys, who was born after their departure.
He had a 36-year relationship with his new wife, Rosemary Talbot, and had two more children.
Mr Talbot sold a successful courier business in 1997 and continued to grow his fortune through a series of property investments and part-ownership of Berkshire estate agents the Cricketts.
As well as his home Carbrook in Thatcham, Berks, Curridge also owned a number of rental properties and a villa in Portugal worth £450,000 when he died unexpectedly in October 2022.
The court heard that although they spoke on the phone when she was 16, Emma did not see her father after he left her until she contacted him at the behest of her mother in 2019.
Judge Caroline Shea KC was told the pair had belatedly established a “close” relationship, including holidaying together at his villa.
Mr Talbot had made a will in May 2014, leaving everything to Rosemary and specifically excluding Emma and Rhys: “I DECLARE that I make no provision in my will for my son, Rhys Winstone, whom I never knew, or for my daughter, Emma Winstone, whom I last saw nearly twenty years ago. I have no contact with either of them.”
This will remain unchanged until his sudden and unexpected death in 2022, as father and daughter reconnect.
Aiden O’Brien, for Emma, told the court she had applied for “reasonable financial assistance” from her father’s estate to enable her to buy a house suitable for her children’s needs and pay off her £50,000 debt.
“The deceased decided to cut ties with the plaintiff, his brother and his mother in 1985. Frankly, this was not at the plaintiff’s request or under his control,” he said.
“In 2019, the decedent called the plaintiff in an attempt to re-establish a more normal father/daughter relationship.
“Although it is accepted that the deceased expressly refused to provide support to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the will, this was carried out in 2014, when no meaningful rapprochement was expected.
“The deceased passed away unexpectedly. It cannot be said that the views he expressed so clearly in 2014 belonged to the moment of his death.
“Emma is married with two children, both disabled. The plaintiff’s husband also has heart and spinal cord problems.
“Unfortunately, the plaintiff also has his own health issues, including spine issues, autism, ADHD, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and burnout.
“The claimant lives in a three-bedroom housing association property with his family and they are on a range of government benefits, supplemented by his modest business income.
“Emma and her family receive a complex cocktail of government support, including universal credit, personal independence payment (PIP), child benefit and disability living allowance.
“The deceased’s net worth is relatively large, around £1,750,000.
“Emma argues that there is sufficient ‘headroom’ to make an order in her favor without creating any injustice to Rosemary.
“In stark contrast to the plaintiff, Rosemary confirmed that she was in relatively good health and had no disabilities.”
However, George Woodhead, on Rosemary’s behalf, argued that the will should be honored and nothing should be given to her.
“After payment of funeral and probate expenses, the remainder of the inheritance was left solely to Rosemary,” he told the judge.
“It was alleged that Mark had not failed to make reasonable financial provision for Emma.
“It was suggested that it would not be appropriate to give an award.”
He said Emma was capable of earning money and that her father did not provide her with financial support or take responsibility for looking after her while she was alive.
He also made it clear that he did not want to leave anything to his children, including his children with Rosemary, the lawyer said.
The property also represented the “joint efforts” of Mark and Rosemary, as Mark and Rosemary’s focus on the business “halted Rosemary’s ability to earn” and effectively became her “pension.”
While Emma was in the witness box, Mr Woodhead told her she was not financially dependent on her father, saying: “Mark’s death had no impact on your resources.”
“I don’t agree with that,” the woman replied, crying to the judge and telling her that she had managed to survive despite the difficulties she had previously experienced, but that her father’s death had made things even more difficult.
“It affected my ability to work,” he said.
“It’s hard to quantify. The pain was and continues to be complex. It affected my anxiety, my fears about my own health and what that meant.”
“I worked so hard for so long to prove that I was good enough. His death took away my purpose in so many ways.
“I haven’t had long enough to get over not having my father in my life and feeling unworthy of him leaving again.”
The decision will be made later after the two-day hearing.
