It's so sad that families are reduced to this.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/childless-widows-sister-niece-win-21484021?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=EM_Mirror_Nletter_DailyNews_News_mediumteaser_Image_Story&utm_campaign=daily_newsletterFamily 'fight to the death' over gran's £825,000 will signed under pressure before passing away
A Hampshire home was at the centre of a bitter family dispute over claims an elderly widow was pressured into leaving the £645k house to her brother and his sons in her will which she signed in a hospital waiting room
By Paul Keogh
17:09, 12 FEB 2020Updated17:32, 12 FEB 2020
The sister and niece of a childless widow have won an £825,000 "fight to the death" over her will after claims she was "stitched up" into leaving her home to her brother and his sons. Weeks before her 2016 death, former nurse Shirley Guymer re-wrote her will to leave her Hampshire hilltop home to brother Terry and nephews Andrew and Malcolm. But her sister Diane Stoner, 77, and niece Karen Reeve, 51, claimed it was Terry and his sons behind the "shocking" change to her will guiding Shirley's hand as she left the house, on Butser Hill, near Petersfield, to their side of the family. Terry "belittled and controlled" cancer-stricken Shirley, they claimed, and together he and "his clan stitched up an old lady" in the months before her death. Her previous will, signed in 2015 and dividing almost everything she had equally between her 11 nieces and nephews, with a bequest to the hospice where her husband died, should stand, they said. However, Terry, Andrew, and Malcolm insisted the last will was valid and that "stubborn and strong" Mrs. Guymer knew her own mind when she re-wrote it in hospital in 2016. But today, after an eight-day trial at Central London County Court, the case was dramatically halted when the men agreed that the will leaving them the house should be scrapped. Instead the 2015 will which was backed by Mrs. Stoner, Mrs. Reeve and all of the family bar Terry and his immediate family would be pronounced as her final will, lawyers said. Despite hearing six full days of evidence, Judge Robin Hollington QC who had previously termed the dispute a "fight to the death" did not make a ruling on the specific allegations against the men. Speaking after the hearing this afternoon, Mrs. Reeve said: "We are absolutely delighted with the outcome and that Sheila's wishes will be carried out. We are really pleased that Rowans Hospice, in Waterlooville, will now be receiving a legacy for the care that they gave to my late uncle, Sheila's husband. This has taken four years of hard work. I would like to thank my mum Diane Stoner, my husband and all of my family."
During the trial, the court heard Shirley spent her working life as a nurse at Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth, and lived with her dockyard electrician husband Bernard at the Butser Hill house from 1972. The land on which the house stood had been bought by Terry and he lived next door to his sister and brother-in-law after handing over part of the plot to them. The couple did not have children and, after Bernard's death in 2014, Shirley wrote a will, splitting almost everything she had equally between her nieces and nephews. However, two months before her death, two new documents were signed, first handing over part of her land to Terry and the next a new will completely different from her previous one. The new will instead be left half of her house, known as Heatherdown and now valued at £645,000, to Terry, 78, with his sons Andrew, 50, and Malcolm, 54, getting a quarter share. The rest of her fortune, which amounted to about £180,000 in cash and investments, was split into various amounts between her five siblings and their children. Challenging the 2016 will, barrister Julian Sidoli claimed that Shirley did not have the mental capacity to understand what she was doing when she signed it. He claimed the will signed in a hospital waiting room was "procured by undue influence" of the three men and it was Malcolm who was the driving force behind it to ensure the house stayed on Terry's side of the family. "Between you and the rest of your clan, you stitched up an old lady," Mr. Sidoli put to Terry in the witness box. "She lacked knowledge of the 2016 will, she lacked the capacity to make it in the first place, she was bullied and coerced by you and your family. The 2016 will is Malcolm's will, not Shirley's."
Denying all the accusations, Terry branded them "rubbish". His sister had simply changed her mind, knowing that she was terminally ill, he claimed. Carol Davies, for Terry and the brothers, said Shirley's own GP thought she was well enough to make the will and that her change of heart could easily be explained by the fact that the house was originally owned by Terry and she wanted it to revert back to him on her death. "The purported allegations are in reality 'mud-slinging' with attempts to cast aspersions on the defendants with implications that they unduly influenced the deceased," she said.
"There is nothing credible in the claimants' case or evidence to support any findings of undue influenced by any of the defendants, their wives or family or others, by inference or otherwise."
Giving evidence, Malcolm denied any wrongdoing and said his aunt, Shirley, had been like a "second mum" to him. He and his brother had grown up next to her on Butser Hill and she referred to them as her "sons of Butser," he claimed. "She looked after me as a baby. She looked after me through the years we lived together and then I looked after her when she became poorly and ultimately until she passed away," he said.
But Mr. Sidoli claimed Malcolm had "actively participated" in the making of the new will in January 2016, going beyond "merely helping" his increasingly vulnerable aunt. "It appears it is Malcolm giving the instructions," he told the judge. "He is not acting as a conduit she is a passive passenger."
The court heard Diane and Karen's case was supported by all of the family, except Terry, Andrew, Malcolm, and their immediate family. Diane told the court she would get nothing if the 2016 will is overturned but still decided to fight it as she wanted her sister's wishes respected. "I'm not happy because my sister told us all that she had left it to her nieces and nephews and they were all aware of it," she said.
"The disappointment was acute for them and the whole family. I'm not here for myself. It's more of a moral issue."
Her sister, Dee Parker, who also supported the case, told the judge that Terry had constantly "controlled and belittled" Shirley. "She didn't hate him. She loved him, but she was frightened of him," she said.
"I don't hate him," she added. "But I am ashamed of him."
In her evidence during the trial, Karen Reeve said her aunt had never had "much regard" for Terry. "She always said 'Terry is not having my land'. Then suddenly to have a will written in favour of Terry was shocking," she said.
"I personally am not interested in receiving money, but I was shocked at the turnaround, and the change."
The case began at Central London County Court last week, but it was only on the eighth day today that it settled. The two women's solicitor, Laura Rolls, of Hampshire-based Glanvilles Legal Services, said she was delighted with the outcome. "I am over the moon with the outcome for my clients," she said. "It's been a long, hard journey."
The decision means 95 percent of the value of the house and approximately £180,000 in cash and investments will be split equally between Shirley's 11 nieces and nephews. Rowan's Hospice, in Waterlooville, will receive five percent of the value of the net estate.
