A GRANDAD left his grandkids only £50 each from his £500,000 fortune because he was “hurt” they didn’t visit him more often.
Frederick Ward Snr died in 2020 aged 91 and split almost all of his money between two of his kids, Terry Ward and Susan Wiltshire.
But his dead son Fred Jr’s five adult children were handed just £50 each in envelopes leading to a family row.
The former soldier told his legal representatives that he was upset because he had not been visited by his Fred’s children while in hospital three times with a lung condition.
After learning they had been all but disinherited, the five – sisters Carol Gowing, Angela St Marseille, Amanda Higginbotham, Christine Ward and Janet Pett – sued.
The quintet claimed they should get their late dad’s one-third share of their grandfather’s money.
They argued that their uncle Terry and aunt Susan had “unduly influenced” their grandad into changing his will to give them the five sisters’ share of his estate.
However their case was thrown out by High Court judge Master James Brightwell.
He said it was “entirely rational” for the “disappointed” grandad to cut out his grandkids due to their “very limited contact” with him in his last years.
He said that “the evidence does not come close to persuading me” that Terry had “coerced” his father or that Susan had “controlled” him such as to cast doubt on his will.
Fred Snr was an “independent and strong minded” ex-cable joiner and regular social club user who lived in South Ealing, London.
He had three kids, Fred Jr, Terry and Susan, and had previously made a will which split his estate, including his £450,000 maisonette, between all three.
But Fred Jr – father to the five sisters – died before his dad in 2015, following which the family fell out and Fred Snr did not see much of Fred Jr’s side.
And when his will was read out by Terry after his death, a bitter shouting match broke out – which was recorded and played to the court – when it was revealed that the five sisters had been all but cut out.
From a fortune valued at around £500,000, they were handed envelopes containing just £50 each in cash by Terry.
They then sued, claiming that their grandad’s final 2018 will was invalid, having been made when he was “an ill man” and “frightened” of Terry, who “coerced” him into making it.
They also pointed the finger at Susan, Fred Snr’s daughter and carer in the last years of his life, accusing her of exerting “undue influence” over their grandad.
Their barrister told the judge that Terry had developed a particular “hate” for his niece Carol Gowing after a family falling out over a property.
They said there was a “palpable…dislike between the two sides of the family”.
“The claimants allege a mercenary side to the relationship between the defendants and the deceased,” the barrister said, with witnesses for the sisters recounting “the deceased complaining of being asked for money by one or both”.
The witnesses also claimed “they were told of physically violent behaviour by Terry to the deceased,” who in his later life “appeared scared” of his son, he told the judge.
Terry and his barrister Maxwell Myers vehemently denied the “unpleasant” allegations, with Terry in the witness box calling one of the witnesses who made them “an absolute liar”.
Mr Myers also denied the allegations of undue influence, saying that claims that Fred Snr was a weak man “differs from reality” and was contradicted by the evidence.
“His strength of character is attested to by a close friend,” he said, adding that the friend claimed “Fred Snr would never be frightened by Terry or Sue”.
With Carol Gowing in the witness box, Mr Myers put to her that “when ones dies, one is entitled to leave one’s property to whoever one pleases.”
“Yes, as long as the will has been written up correctly,” she replied.
“I can’t prove they bullied him, but I feel the evidence we have points to that. It’s what we’ve been told by family members.”
Giving judgment, Master Brightwell described the 2018 will as “rational” in the circumstances, given that Fred Jr’s children had not seen much of their grandfather after their dad’s death in 2015.
They had not visited him in hospital because they were not informed he was there, due to how often he was admitted and also “because contact between the parties had stopped in any event,” he said.
The five sisters had made only “very occasional short visits” to see their grandad, while he was on close terms with his son Terry and Susan was his full-time carer.
“It is most likely that given the changed circumstances following Fred Jr’s death and the limited contact with the claimants after then that Fred became disappointed with the claimants,” he said.
“I accept Susan’s evidence that her father complained that Fred Jr’s family did not care about him,” adding that he was particularly upset about the lack of contact at the time of one of his great-granddaughters’ weddings.
“He complained that he was not even sent a piece of wedding cake,” he said.
“In those circumstances, and despite a promise by Fred several years earlier to divide his estate between his children’s children if anything should happen to any of them, the 2018 will was in my view entirely rational.
“This does not mean that I cannot understand the claimants’ disappointment at being essentially left out.”
“Some may take the view that, as a general proposition, when a testator’s child has predeceased him, he generally ought to leave an equal share of his residue to that child’s issue,” he added.
“However, the decision not to do so and to split the residue and thus the bulk of the estate between his surviving children can hardly be said to be provision which no reasonable testator could make.”
Clearing both Terry and Susan of influencing their dad into cutting out his granddaughters, he said: “The evidence does not come close to persuading me that it is more likely than not that the 2018 will was procured by the undue influence of the defendants or either of them.”
The judge also rejected claims that Fred Snr did not have “capacity” to make the will in 2018 or that it was invalid for “want of knowledge and approval” of its effect.
