The alleged last will of William Oliver dated 14 September 2015 (‘2015 Will’) was found to be invalid due to a lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by his son, Rodney Oliver.
William’s daughter, Jane, argued that his earlier will dated 2 October 2009 (‘2009 Will’) should be pronounced as his last valid will rather than the 2015 Will. William and his wife made mirror wills in 2009 which provided the estate be divided between their 5 children equally on the death of the other spouse. The 2015 Will, however, named Rodney as the executor, trustee and beneficiary to the exclusion of his siblings.
Undue Influence
Rodney had overpowered William’s will, causing him to comply with Rodney’s point of view for a quiet life. William’s physical and mental strength also needed to be considered to determine the amount of influence required to affect him.
Judge Matthews found that Rodney weaned William off his medication; he also persuaded William to drink urine and inject himself with hydrogen peroxide, demonstrating Rodney’s powerful influence on William to the detriment of his health. Rodney was later barred from visiting William in hospital due to fears he was administering William with hydrogen peroxide.
In addition, Rodney told William his siblings committed fraud and embezzled money from the family business. Rodney also changed William’s telephone number, introduced a call screening device that prevented communication from his siblings and installed broken doorbells to deter callers. The increasing isolation meant Rodney could influence William and exclude his siblings from William’s life and by the 2015 Will.
Lack of Testamentary Capacity
To determine whether William lacked testamentary capacity, the four-element test from Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549 is applied. William must have understood:
- The nature and effect of making a will;
- The property he distributed in his will;
- The potential claims against his estate if individuals were excluded; and
- He cannot have suffered from insane delusions or disorders of the mind.
Based on medical evidence, the Judge found William understood the nature of making a will and broadly, the property to distribute. However, William would not have understood his children’s potential claims following their exclusion from the 2015 Will. The Judge concluded that the false beliefs about his children were a delusion meaning William lacked testamentary capacity. The Judge also found William suffered from several medical conditions including moderate Alzheimer’s that affected his “executive functioning” and this was a disorder of the mind. So, William failed the third and fourth elements of the Banks v Goodfellow test.
The Judge stated that William was completely dependent on Rodney and if he had testamentary capacity, William would have been unable to produce a will on his own due to Rodney’s undue influence.
Comment
Oliver v Oliver is notable as it is rare for wills to be invalidated due to undue influence, as this typically occurs in private and is therefore challenging to prove with evidence. This case highlights the warning signs of isolation and significant influence by one individual over the will-maker, which can alarm family members or close friends. This demonstrates a growing sector of law in which elderly and vulnerable individuals are exploited, often by those closest to them.
Should you have any concerns about a vulnerable person close to you, please do not hesitate to contact one of our Contested Probate specialists.