Analysis
Marula Christofides died on 14 May 2009 having made a will on 22 October 2008 leaving her worldwide residuary estate between her son Andreas, her two daughters Panayiota and Joanna and her granddaughter Benita.
Probate was granted in May 2010 on a net UK estate of £308,253 with a property in London valued then at £300,000 but at the time of trial worth £420,000. The deceased owned two areas of land in Cyprus – one with a house worth €280,000 and one in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus owned by the deceased’s husband. His Honour Judge Hand eventually settled on £125,000 as to be a realistic figure for a quarter of residue.
Andreas challenged the will on the basis that it failed to make reasonable financial provision for him. He was prepared to forgo any interest he might have in the property in Cyprus. Andreas was 53 at the time of trial and very unwell, weighing 26 stone with numerous ailments and using a wheelchair. Since 1991 he had only worked between 1999-2002. He had always lived with his mother. His care plan stated that he needed 24-hour care costing £735 per week and necessitating accommodation with two bedrooms for him and his carer. He argued that his mother had failed to recognise that his physical and mental disabilities made it necessary for greater provision to be made for him.
Panayiota retired from teaching following heart problems and lived off her pension. Her debts were considerable. Her live in partner also had debts.
Joanna’s outgoings exceeded her income and she had very considerable debts and a risk of being made redundant from her job.
Benita relied on state benefits to raise her two children and like her mother and aunt her outgoings exceeded her income and she had considerable debts. In the past she had lived with her grandmother.
The defendants argued that Andreas could lose weight and stop smoking to allow him to undergo bariatric surgery and claimed that he was consciously exaggerating his medical symptoms.
Held (dismissing the claim):
- (1) All parties have lost any objectivity that they might once have had.
- (2) It not appropriate to look at the case from the point of view of the probate valuation in 2010 given that the assets remain largely intact.
- (3) Given the resources of the parties no one can fund refurbishment of the English property. Given the uncertainties as to who inherited the land in Northern Cyprus and whether it has any actual value given its position then this is to be left out of the account. The contingent cost liability of the proceedings should be left out of the account.
- (4) Andreas is not exaggerating his symptoms, he is most unwell.
- (5) The deceased regarded her granddaughter as equivalent to her children and wished them all to have an equal share.
- (6) It is for the judge to make a value judgement and Andreas and Benita are in the same position as both rely on state benefits. Joanna and Panayiota are also of modest means although their income does not come from the state.
- (7) The deceased had an obligation and responsibility to each of her adult children and she discharged it by giving them each an equal share.
- (8) The deceased looked upon her granddaughter with great affection and it was not a failure to discharge her obligation or responsibility to Andreas to divide her estate into four rather than three.
- (9) This is a modest estate and unless the deceased felt it necessary to leave Andreas the lion’s share of the estate his ambition to have his own property could not be realised.
- (10) The deceased’s wishes count for quite a lot when it is a modest estate.
- (11) When the will was made the deceased knew Andrews was unwell but she plainly took the view that the estate was not large enough for her to make a distinction between her children and grandchildren as she held them all in equal regard.
- (12) Leaving Andreas unable to buy his own accommodation where council accommodation is available to him and only leaving him a quarter of the estate was reasonable financial provision for him.
The claimant was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings.
The claimant was initially in receipt of public funding. But that funding ceased a few months before the trial. The claimant’s liability to pay the defendants’ costs was therefore subject to the usual public funding protection for the period during which he was in receipt of public funding.
JUDGMENT HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAND: [1] This is a claim brought in Part A Form by one of the beneficiaries under a will made on 22 October 2008 by the late Marula Christofides. She died on 14 May 2009. [2] By that will, which is at p1 of the hearing bundle, she appointed her daughters, …Continue reading "Christofides v Seddon & ors 1CL10658"