News headlines are designed to grab our attention. But in doing so, they can mislead; a classic example is in the Mail Online today which reports “Family of Mousetrap star who appeared alongside Richard Attenborough in first run of Agatha Christie’s play win £312,000 inheritance fight after he cut them out of his will to leave it all to his carer”.

The facts appear to be that Peter Bridgmont died aged 90 in 2019. He and his wife Barbara had 3 sons; Richard, Andrew and Nicholas. When Barbara died in 2008 she left a will naming Richard as her executor, and leaving her half share of the family home to her sons. As the property was held by the couple as ‘tenants in common’, rather than as ‘joint tenants’, Barbara’s half share did not pass automatically to her husband and she was entitled to leave her share as she did in her will. For some reason however, it appears that her sons were either unaware of the will at that time, or misunderstood it. They seem to have assumed that all of their mother’s estate, including her half share of the property, had passed to their father.

Peter gave each of his sons £120,000 as a gift when Barbara died.

2 years later, in 2010, Peter’s friend and carer, Frances Zammit moved in with him. In 2015 Peter made a new will leaving his entire estate to Frances. On his death in 2019, Richard, Andrew and Nicholas realised that they had not been left anything by their father. They reconsidered their mother’s will and Richard issued court proceedings on behalf of her estate, to enforce her wish that they should receive her share of the property (up to the inheritance tax limit at the time of £312,000 ie £104,000 each).

So – this was not a claim against their father’s estate with regard to his decision to exclude them from his will. It was simply a claim to enforce Barbara’s wishes, as set out in her will.

Frances Zammit appears to have opposed the claim on the basis that by accepting the gifts of £120,000 from their father in 2008, the brothers had effectively agreed to ‘vary’ the terms of their mother’s will. The judge found that wasn’t true.

This is a quirky case; it’s surprising that it took till 2019 and their father’s death before the brothers realised what their mother’s will meant. Certainly, the news headline doesn’t reflect what the case was actually about.

The nuance and complexity of some inheritance disputes cannot always be reduced to a few attention-grabbing paragraphs. If Barbara had left her half share of the property to her husband on her death (as would often be the case with married couples), and if Peter Bridgmont’s will had been validly made  – there’s no reason to think it wasn’t –  then it is very unlikely that the brothers would have been entitled to claim anything from his estate. But then again, who wants the facts to get in the way of a good story?!

Sarah Young – Director & Solicitor