Devoted daughter Rita Rea (left) who cared for her elderly mother Anna (right) until her death. Image Credit: Daily Mail
FootAnstey reported that the court considered there was a rational explanation for Anna’s decision. Paul Robinson’s legal analysis reported that the case reaffirmed an important distinction regarding inheritance disputes. Rita had lived with her and cared for her for years, while Anna believed her sons had not provided the same level of care. The court also considered the evidence from the solicitor and GP who had been involved in preparing and witnessing the will. Influence, persuasion, family disagreement or dependency do not automatically amount to undue influence. The evidence must show that the person’s free choice was overcome by coercion.
Because of her age and the substantial change from the earlier will, she also arranged for Anna’s GP, Dr Sajid Abdul Qaiyum, to assess her capacity. The preparation of Anna’s will became particularly important during the appeals. The solicitor had taken instructions directly from Anna and was satisfied that she understood what she wanted. The case nevertheless continued through another trial and appeal.
The Court of Appeal had earlier urged the family to consider mediation when it ordered the retrial, warning about the emotional and financial consequences of continuing the dispute.
Why did the three brothers challenge the will
After Anna died in 2016, her three sons challenged the new will, alleging that Rita had unduly influenced their mother. The dispute eventually reached the Court of Appeal, which upheld the 2015 will in 2024. Anna had lived at 5 Brenda Road in Tooting Bec, London, since 1964, and the house became the central asset in the family dispute. Anna had four children including 3 sons named Remo, Nino and David, and one daughter Rita, according to the ProMediate account of Rea v Rea. Her 1986 will had divided her estate equally between the four. By 2015, the family situation had changed considerably. Anna had suffered a heart attack in 2009 and needed increasing support. The 2023 High Court judgment recorded that Rita lived with her mother from 2009 and that the extent of the care she provided was not disputed, although the brothers and Rita disagreed about their own involvement in caring for Anna. The original court evidence described the house as worth about £750,000 at the time of the 2015 will, while later reports put the value at close to £1 million. On 7 December 2015, Anna signed a new will prepared by solicitor Savita Sukul. The High Court’s 2023 retrial accepted several of those concerns. David, one of the three brothers who took legal action after their mother Anna died in 2016. Image Credit: Daily Mail In February 2024, the Court of Appeal unanimously allowed Rita’s appeal and restored the 2015 will. Anna died on 26 July 2016, aged 85. The final Court of Appeal decision came in February 2024, bringing almost seven years of litigation to an end. The first trial upheld the 2015 will. At the 2023 retrial, the brothers succeeded, only for that decision to be overturned by the Court of Appeal the following year. The final ruling meant that Anna’s 2015 will remain valid.
Because the earlier will had remained in place for nearly 30 years, the change was significant. The judge therefore declared the 2015 will invalid and restored the position under the 1986 will. Because the brothers had been unfairly restricted in cross-examining Rita, a subsequent appeal resulted in an order for a new trial.
Rita retained the gift of the Tooting Bec family home, while the remainder of Anna’s estate was to be divided between all four children according to the terms of that will. In her latter years Anna Rea changed her will and left her main asset, a South London home, to her daughter Rita who had taken care of her for years. The decision overturned a previous settlement that had split her estate evenly among her four children. There was a long legal battle, including two trials and several appeals. Rita moved back into the family home and became her principal carer. The value of the property was substantial. The home was effectively the main asset of Anna’s estate. It gave the house to Rita, while the remainder of the estate was still divided equally between the four children. The will also recorded Anna’s reasons for treating her daughter differently, pointing to Rita’s years of care and her view that her sons had not provided the assistance she expected. The brothers later argued that the new arrangement was not the result of their mother’s independent decision. This was not just a legal case of Anna changing her mind or not. Her sons challenged the will on a number of grounds including lack of testamentary capacity, lack of knowledge and approval, undue influence and fraudulent calumny. The central issue eventually became whether Rita had coerced her mother into making the change. The brothers questioned the circumstances surrounding the new will and argued that their mother’s age, frailty and dependence on Rita made her vulnerable. They also pointed to Rita’s involvement in arranging the solicitor’s appointment and the fact that the new will was not disclosed to them before Anna died. Judge Hodge KC found that Anna had the mental capacity to make a will and understood what the document contained, but concluded that Rita had exercised undue influence over her. That ruling was not the final word, however. Rita appealed, taking the dispute back to the Court of Appeal. The judges concluded that the evidence did not establish the level of coercion required to prove undue influence in a will. The GP found Anna capable and did not identify evidence that she was being coerced. Rita was also absent when the final will was executed. These details later carried considerable weight when the Court of Appeal reconsidered the High Court’s findings. The legal proceedings began the following year and continued through an original trial, appeals, a retrial and another appeal. The route to that decision was particularly complicated. You use AI every day. Now get your AI Quotient. Take the AIQ test.
