Earlier this year, a lawyer from China, who had married a British man and moved to the UK to live with him, lost her battle in court to defend the validity of his last Will and testament which set to make her the sole beneficiary of his estate. The Will was challenged by the testator’s daughter, who brought a successful claim against the Wills validity, on the grounds of undue influence, securing herself a share of the estate.
Pursuing a validity challenge on the grounds of undue influence can be a difficult task, so we thought this would be an interesting case to take a closer look at.
The case
The 54-year-old Chinese lawyer was due to inherit the entirety of her elderly husband’s estate, after he had executed a new Will only two months prior to his death. The 94-year-old testator, Mr Harrington, had married his new wife, Guixiang Qin, only 11 months prior to his death, and had moved her in to his home in Norfolk. Ms Qin had previously been living in China.
Upon Mr Harrington’s death, his daughter, Jill Langley, became aware that she had been disinherited from her father’s estate, with everything passing to Ms Qin. Ms Langley thereafter sought to challenge the validity of the Will and therein, Ms Qin’s inheritance.
Ms Langley had concerns as to Mr Harringtons capacity at the time the Will was executed, as he was an elderly man with a variety of health conditions at this time. She also raised concern as to the nature of the marriage, claiming that Mrs Qin had acted in a predatory manner, in coercing Mr Harrington into a marriage that he did not want nor fully understand. Ms Langley stated that her father had not even informed the family that he was getting married, could not pronounce his new wife’s name and was unable to stand for the wedding photos, which was believed to be unusual and telling of his lacking awareness of events.
In light of the distrust towards Mrs Qin, the court was also asked to remove her as the joint administrator of the estate. Alongside the validity challenge, there was also reference to potential financial abuse during Mr Harrington’s lifetime. As a result of the arguments presented to the court the request was approved.
After a short trial, in which Ms Qin represented herself, the will was successfully declared invalid in central London County Court earlier this year.
Ms Langley was successful in her claim that Ms Qin had exerted undue influence over Mr Harrington, in the execution of the Will and the management of his finances, and so the final Will was overturned.
The court noted that “There was clearly an element of control by her [Ms Qin] of the deceased and his finances that increased over time”. There were also comments in relation to Ms Qin’s actions prior to the will being executed: “The numerous enquiries for Will services do, in my judgment, show that there was shopping around, which on her own evidence Mrs Qin knew about and in my judgment was involved”. “Not only do these lend support to question marks about capacity being raised, they tend to suggest a guiding hand, which I find to be Mrs Qin’s”.
As the last Will was deemed invalid, the estate was distributed under the rules of intestacy. Ms Qin still received approximately £475,000 as Mr Harrington’s surviving spouse but Ms Langley also received settlement, in the sum of approximately £200,000, which she would not have received previously.
The court recognised Ms Qin’s behaviour to be controlling and intentionally influential over her husband. It was deemed that she was aware of his vulnerable state and seemingly took advantage of this for her own gain.
Ms Qin being the person who led the search for Will writers cast further doubt over Mr Harrington’s capacity as such enquires were not being undertaken by him, as would be expected if it had truly been his wish and intention to execute a new Will.
The Will detailing Ms Qin as the sole beneficiary of his estate raised further concern, as it demonstrated that the execution of this new Will was solely in her interest and so alongside the will appointments being a product of her actions, it became apparent that she had exerted undue influence over Mr Harrington to execute a new Will.
The conclusion
Whilst it can be common for a person to assist an elderly person with making appointments for formal dealings such as Wills, the way it was actioned in this instance overreached being helpful and instead resulting in coercive and controlling behaviour.
If a testator is not seen to be the driving force behind executing a new Will, concerns can arise as to whether it is their true wish and intention for such a document to be executed. If there are facts and events surrounding the execution of the will in question, these may well add context – and most importantly serve as evidence – to concerns of undue influence.
Challenging a Will on the ground of undue influence can be a difficult task as evidence is required that is sometimes difficult to obtain. If you have concerns that a Will may have been produced or amended as a result of undue influence or coercion, it is best to seek legal advice as soon as possible so that you can consider the options available to you.
If you require advice on challenging the validity of a Will, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with our specialist inheritance dispute solicitors on 0161 696 6178.
Comments