Frederick Ward Snr, a strong-willed former soldier who passed away in 2020, significantly altered his will before his death, leaving his granddaughters with just a small fraction of his estate. His decision has led to a bitter legal battle involving his grandchildren and his other children.
Frederick Ward Snr had three children: Fred Jr, Terry, and Susan. In his original will, he had divided his estate equally among his three children. However, after Fred Jr’s death in 2015, Ward revised his will in 2018, leaving almost the entirety of his estate to his surviving children, Terry and Susan, while leaving Fred Jr’s five daughters — Carol Gowing, Angela St Marseille, Amanda Higginbotham, Christine Ward, and Janet Pett — with only £50 each.
The granddaughters were shocked and dismayed upon discovering they had been largely excluded from the will. They subsequently sued, claiming that their grandfather’s final will was invalid and that Terry and Susan had unduly influenced their father into making these changes. They argued that they should have inherited their late father’s one-third share of their grandfather’s estate.
Their legal battle, however, was unsuccessful. High Court judge, Master James Brightwell, ruled that Frederick Ward Snr’s will was “entirely rational” given the circumstances. He noted that Ward had become disappointed with his granddaughters due to their limited contact with him after their father’s death. Brightwell found it reasonable that Ward chose to leave the bulk of his estate to Terry and Susan, who had maintained close relationships with him.
The court heard that Frederick Ward Snr was a “strong-minded” individual who had lived a full life, including a career as a soldier and a cable joiner, and was a regular at his social club in South Ealing, London. His disappointment with his granddaughters stemmed from their infrequent visits, particularly following Fred Jr’s death. This lack of contact was a significant factor in his decision to amend his will.
The family dispute intensified when the contents of the will were revealed by Terry after Ward’s death. During the will reading, a heated argument erupted, which was recorded and played in court. The granddaughters’ lawyer argued that their uncle Terry and aunt Susan had unduly influenced their grandfather, exploiting his vulnerable state. They accused Terry of coercing Ward and pointed to Susan’s role as his full-time carer as a possible means of exerting influence over him.
Despite these accusations, the judge found no evidence of undue influence. Instead, he acknowledged that the granddaughters’ infrequent visits and the lack of communication contributed to Ward’s decision to change his will. Brightwell noted that while it was disappointing for the granddaughters, Ward’s decision was a rational response to the changed circumstances following Fred Jr’s death.
In the subsequent hearing regarding legal costs, the granddaughters faced further setbacks. The court ordered them to pay over £220,000 to cover their aunt and uncle’s legal costs, as well as their own legal expenses. The judge rejected the granddaughters’ argument that some of these costs should come out of Ward’s estate, asserting that the legal battle was primarily caused by the strained relationship between the granddaughters and their grandfather, rather than any misconduct on the part of Terry or Susan.
During the trial, it was revealed that Frederick Ward Snr had indeed made a promise that if one of his children died, their share of the estate would pass to their children. However, Brightwell concluded that the ultimate cause of the litigation was the deteriorated relationship between Ward and his granddaughters, not any actions by Terry or Susan.
The judge found that while Terry’s behavior after the will reading was “provocative,” it was not the root cause of the litigation. He emphasized that the granddaughters’ minimal contact with their grandfather, combined with Ward’s disappointment in their lack of involvement in his later years, justified his decision to alter his will.
Brightwell also noted that although some might argue that a reasonable testator would have ensured an equal distribution of the estate among his children and their descendants, Ward’s decision to leave the bulk of his estate to his surviving children was within his rights. The judge underscored that it was entirely rational for Ward to change his will based on his perception of who had remained close to him and cared for him in his final years.
The granddaughters’ case highlights the complexities and emotional turmoil that can arise from familial relationships and inheritance disputes. While they faced significant legal and financial challenges in contesting their grandfather’s will, the court ultimately upheld Frederick Ward Snr’s right to distribute his estate as he saw fit. This case underscores the importance of clear communication and understanding within families regarding expectations and decisions about inheritance, particularly when relationships change over time.
In conclusion, the legal battle over Frederick Ward Snr’s estate demonstrates the difficulties that can arise when expectations of inheritance are not met and family relationships become strained. Despite their disappointment and the substantial costs incurred, the granddaughters’ challenge to the will was ultimately unsuccessful, affirming the principle that individuals have the right to leave their property as they choose, provided their decisions are made rationally and without undue influence.