Earlier this year, the Court of Appeal delivered a significant judgment in Rea v Rea concerning undue influence in will disputes. This case highlights just how difficult it can be to prove undue influence and offers key insights into protecting your will against claims for undue influence.
Background of the Case
Anna Rea died on 26 July 2016, aged 85, leaving a will dated 7 December 2015 (the 2015 Will). Anna was survived by her four children: a daughter, Rita; and three sons, Remo, Nino and David. Rita lived with Anna and was her principle carer from 2009 until her death.
The 2015 Will
In November 2015, Rita contacted SJS Solicitors to arrange an appointment for her mother to create a new will. The following day, Anna met with the solicitor to give instructions, with Rita present at Anna's request. Importantly, the solicitor's notes indicated that while Rita occasionally interjected, the instructions were taken directly from Anna. Anna was clear in her decision that she wanted Rita to inherit her property, explaining that she felt abandoned by her sons who did not care for her.
The solicitor recommended that Anna undergo a capacity assessment by her GP, who confirmed that Anna was mentally capable and not under any undue influence. Anna later returned to the solicitor's office alone to execute the 2015 Will, witnessed by her solicitor and GP. The will stipulated that Rita would inherit Anna's property, with the remainder of the estate divided equally among her three sons.
Validity of the will
Following Anna's death, her sons were angered by the terms of the 2015 Will and decided to challenge its validity. They alleged that Anna lacked testamentary capacity when the 2015 Will was made, did not understand or approve the contents of the will, was subjected to undue influence by Rita, and that the will was invalid due to fraudulent calumny.
In the first instance, the court found that the 2015 Will was valid. However, the sons appealed and the case was retried. The retrial took place in July 2023 and the judge decided that while Anna had capacity; knew and approved of the terms of the 2015 Will; and that this was not a case of fraudulent calumny; the case for undue influence had been made out. The Judge felt that due to Anna's frailty, vulnerability, dependency on Rita, and a number of other factors, it was clear that Rita had pressured Anna into making a new will. This meant that the 2015 Will was pronounced invalid.
Rita appealed the court's decision, and the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal on 1 February 2024.
The Court of Appeal Decision:
The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision, finding that there was not sufficient evidence that Rita had coerced her mother into making a new will and confirming the validity of the 2015 Will. The Court confirmed that "for coercion to be proved, it had to be shown to be more probable than any other possibility." In this case, the Court considered that the possibility that Rita may have sought to persuade or encourage her mother to make the 2015 Will was as least as probable as undue influence.
The Court emphasised that persuasion or encouragement alone does not constitute coercion. As established in Wingrove v Wingrove, undue influence requires evidence that the testator would have expressed, "This is not my wish, but I must do it."
Implications
This ruling reinforces the presumption against undue influence, even when a party has influenced the testator's decisions. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging undue influence, who must provide compelling evidence to overcome this presumption.
The case also underscores the importance of seeking legal advice when drafting a will to protect it against potential challenges. The clear notes and capacity assessment by Anna's solicitor played a crucial role in refuting the undue influence claim. Legal guidance is particularly vital when the terms of a will may be contentious among potential beneficiaries.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.