Battle of Wills

Source: Melinda Gimpel on Unsplash

RSPCA challenges decision to overturn will

Couple left charity their £2.35m estate, but court later awarded it to their daughter

The RSPCA today launched a high court challenge to a ruling that overturned a will leaving the charity a £2.35m estate after a daughter contested her parents' legacy.

In a case with potential implications for the charity sector, the animal rescue organisation said it had a duty to fight the ruling "to uphold the wishes of those that choose to bequeath it a legacy".

Christine Gill, 59, a university lecturer from Northallerton, North Yorkshire, last year won a high court battle to overturn the will in which her parents left their 287-acre farm to the charity.

A judge in Leeds found that Dr Gill's "bullying" and "domineering" father had coerced her mother into making the will, in which they left everything to the RSPCA and nothing to their only child.

But the RSPCA told the court of appeal that the judge was "wrong to find that Mr Gill unduly influenced Mrs Gill into executing her will".

Leading charities are anxiously watching the case, which has so far cost in excess of £1.3m in legal costs.

A statement prior to the hearing, signed by 11 charities including the RSPB, Great Ormond Street and the Charities Aid Foundation, said: "This case has been troubling for many charities and we are very concerned at its possible implication for the charity sector.

"It is unacceptable for charity trustees to be caught between the legal duty to secure assets to which the charity is entitled and the threat of huge legal costs being imposed for attempting to do so."

It added: "It is crucial that this matter is finally settled, one way or another, so that charities can be more certain of the legal landscape and can plan accordingly."

Mr Gill died in 1999, aged 82. But it was only after his wife died in 2006, also aged 82, that their daughter saw the will in which her parents had left the farm to each other and then to the RSPCA when both died.

The judge found Dr Gill's mother would have wanted her to inherit the farm but that her father had coerced his wife into favouring the charity.

In a statement released today outside the court, the RSPCA said it felt "strongly" that Mrs Gill's testamentary wishes "were clear" and the ruling failed to recognise that.

"The Gills had already provided substantially for their daughter during their lifetime, which included a large contribution towards the purchase of the farmhouse in which she now lives," it said.

"The RSPCA carefully considered the merits of its action before taking the decision to defend Dr Gill's claims and subsequently to appeal in order to honour Mrs Gill's wishes.

"Whilst the charity appreciates Dr Gill's disappointment in failing to receive her mother's estate, the law in this country is clear; individuals have the testamentary freedom to leave their estate to whoever they wish.

"The RSPCA considers that it has an obligation to seek to uphold the wishes of those that choose to bequeath it a legacy. As a charitable organisation it is restricted by charity law in its ability to simply disclaim the legacy Mrs Gill left."

It added that if the charity gave up income every time it faced a challenge, "individuals would question the point of making a will benefiting a charity and it would have a direct effect on its ability to carry out its charitable work".

Dr Gill won her case after the court heard she had an expectation and been given assurances she would inherit the farm. The court also heard that her mother suffered from agoraphobia and severe anxiety.

The judge found she had been "coerced" by her husband into making a will that was contrary to her wishes as she had an "avowed dislike" of the RSPCA.

The appeal continues.

Source: The Guardian 

Who do you think should win the case?

What is the situation here in Spain? Can you leave your money to a charity and ignore your family?