Family will dispute: Daughter ‘deleted’ from £1.1m will for failing to show mother Dervishe Halil ‘love and respect’
A daughter who was deprived of her mother’s £1.1million inheritance because she did not show enough “love and respect” has lost a court battle after claiming her brother manipulated her mother’s final wishes to secure the fortune.
Derviş Halil, who moved to London from Cyprus in 1952, died in 2021 as a rich man at the age of 94, leaving behind an inheritance of £1.1 million.
Between 2013 and 2018, between the ages of 86 and 90, he prepared four wills. After initially dividing his fortune among all his children, he left everything to his eldest son, 74-year-old Doğan Halil.
This followed a dispute between Doğan and her younger sister Aysel Gencay, 72, after Aysel accused her of “cutting” the family property for her own benefit.
Aysel told the Central London District Court that there was a handwritten polemic from her mother in 2015, threatening her that she would be deprived of her inheritance if she did not apologize, and stating that she had “mended the bridges” with Doğan and showed more respect to Dervişe.
Addressing the letter to Aysel and her other brother Attila, her mother said: “What you did destroyed my life and my home, your behavior towards your brother Doğan is very bad and shameful; we have seen nothing but kindness from Doğan to all of us.”
And three years later in 2018, Derviş put his warning into effect by preparing a new will that deprived Aysel and Attila of their inheritance, and added: “Aysel and Attila: None of the conditions of the letter I sent three years ago were fulfilled. Unfortunately, nothing has changed.”
“You still don’t talk to your brother Doğan, you still don’t show me love and respect. You destroyed my house, so I deleted you from my will.”
Aysel, who will leave all of Dervişe’s last fortune in 2018 to Doğan, prompts Aysel, as the executor of the inheritance, to file a lawsuit, accusing Aysel of exercising undue influence over their mother and poisoning her mind to deprive her of her inheritance.
His lawyers argued that Dervişe did not fully understand that he left everything to Doğan in his last will or that this was the result of his eldest son’s “excessive influence”.
His brother Attila was one of the defendants, along with Doğan’s wife and co-executor Susan, and one third of the inheritance was given to him under a power of attorney by his brother and his wife.
Aysel claimed that her brother was “working” on their mother, so she “submitted her decision”, and pressured him to sign away her fortune, insisting that the two letters explaining her mother’s reasons for disinheriting her were actually inspired by Doğan.
His lawyer, Peter John, argued that the will should be declared invalid due to lack of knowledge or consent, or due to Dogan’s undue influence or fraudulent libel.
“The deceased had always stated that he would deal with his legacy on an equal basis, thanks to his cultural and religious background and his consistent approach to his children throughout their lives,” he said.
“The deceased’s alleged last will – the 2018 will – was therefore a shock to the plaintiff as the deceased’s only daughter, as it was completely contradictory to these statements and was also inconsistent with the relationship she had had with the deceased throughout her life.”
He argued that his mother could not have written the letters dated 2015 or 2018 “without significant assistance” and that the language used was “strikingly similar” to the language used by Doğan in his correspondence.
Aysel, who lives in Türkiye, took a step against all traditions and family expectations by saying that she was always close to her mother and that she would never deprive her of her inheritance.
Giving evidence, he claimed that his mother came to visit him from her home in Istanbul several times a year in his final years, and told the judge: “I have remained extremely close to my mother throughout my life.”
But Judge Mark Raeside KC said in his ruling that Aysel was “obsessed” with proving that her brother was a fraud, when in fact he was a “dutiful son” doing the best he could for his aging mother.
He was also convinced that Dogan had “sliced up” his share of the lucrative property, accusing him of “slicing up” the basement of the valuable family property in Packington Street, Islington, for his own benefit.
The judge said, “Aysel said that the side letters could only have come from Doğan, who was behind his lies.”
While rejecting Aysel’s claim of “fraudulent slander” against Doğan, he added, “But it is clear what was said in the side letters.”
“Aysel’s approach was wrong. She was stuck on this issue and her attitude was fundamentally wrong. She brought up these issues very wrongly.
“There is no fraud on Doğan’s part. Since Doğan is not responsible for any suspicion, the case should be rejected.”
The judge noted that Aysel’s unfounded belief that Doğan had deprived her of her share of the basement property had colored her judgment over the years, adding that Doğan had no involvement in the preparation of her mother’s will or side letters.
He observed Dervişe meeting with his lawyer alone, and his lawyer noted that he appeared mentally sharp and aware of what he was doing.
When asked to explain the reasons for taking away his children except Doğan, the judge told his lawyer that “they did not visit him and did not show any interest in him.”
Ruling in favor of Doğan, Judge Raeside said: “I reject the allegation that the deceased received any assistance from Doğan regarding his will. The evidence clearly shows that he was merely a dutiful son.”
“Both side letters were written in Turkish by the deceased’s hand, Doğan did not help him and had nothing to do with them.”
The court heard that after her mother’s death, she discovered the additional letter dated 2018 that accompanied her mother’s last will.
“I think the allegation that Doğan is not honest in his relationships is unfounded and wrong,” he continued.
“He was not dishonest in any way, he always gave a truthful account in every account. It was very sad and surprising that Aysel continued to make these allegations at the hearing.”
Rejecting allegations that Derviş did not have full “testamentary capacity”, he said that Derviş was in his right mind when he prepared his last will two years ago, despite showing signs of dementia as of 2020.
The judge ruled that Dervişe’s last will from 2018 was valid and rejected all claims.
