Builder 'with nothing' from mother's £5million fortune sues sister
A builder has accused his sister of leaving him with 'virtually nothing' of their late mother's £5million fortune after she squandered the inheritance on meals at The Ivy, a court has heard.Gary MacDougall, 70, wrongly assumed the fortune from his late mother's estate would be split equally following her death in April 2020, it is alleged.However, a change to Jeanne MacDougall's will nine years earlier and a series of property sales and gifts meant her son inherited almost nothing.Mr MacDougall has now sued his sister, Sandra Thomas, 65, and her husband, Lloyd, claiming the pair plundered his mother's £5million fortune while she was still alive.Jeanne MacDougall's estate was valued at £2.5million after she died, but Gary MacDougall claims large sums were spent illegitimately by his sister and brother-in-law when she was alive but incapable of consent.This allegedly included purchases on holidays, expensive meals at the Ivy and their daughter's wedding at the five-star Savoy Hotel.Two properties he says should ultimately have gone to his family were also removed from the estate before his mother's death, with one sold for £900,000 and another - a house in west London which he values at £1.7m - handed to his sister and brother-in-law. Gary MacDougall outside High Court after a hearing in the dispute over estate of his mother Jeanne MacDougall Sandra Thomas, who is locked in dispute with her brother Gary MacDougall over their mother's estateMr MacDougall has now submitted a challenge at the High Court over his mother's final will and the validity of a series of lifetime transactions as he attempts to claim over £2m in cash and assets.Sandra Thomas and her husband have said they are fighting the case - claiming that although some of Ms MacDougall's money was spent on their family, it did not ultimately matter as it was destined for her daughter anyway under both her final two wills.The pair have claimed the pensioner's 2011 will was also explainable due to Ms MacDougall being closer to her daughter and intending for her son to get very little or nothing from her estate, having already received valuable business and property interests from her late husband.The case is set to go before the High Court for a 12-day trial which will consider the validity of the will and property transactions - as well as what happened to the pensioner's money before she died.In documents filed at the London court, Mr MacDougall's barrister Harry Martin described how the family fortune derived from the siblings' property developer father Alexander MacDougall's 'substantial real estate portfolio'.Development properties were mainly bought up in the Acton and Ealing areas of west London, renovated and rented out, generating significant profits.As a builder himself, Gary MacDougall said he had contributed to the family's wealth by using his company to maintain the properties free of charge. Lloyd Thomas outside High Court after a hearing in the dispute over the estate of Jeanne MacDougallMr Martin claims that over the years it had been made clear to the two siblings by their parents that they would ultimately receive 'broadly equal financial treatment and inheritance.'This included Gary MacDougall's father allegedly telling him he would not require a significant pension pot as he would inherit property on which to live on in his retirement.Following their father's death, the parties' mother made a will in 2008, which Mr Martin said amounted to a 'broadly equal' split between her son and his family on one side and daughter and son-in-law on the other.Under that will, Mr MacDougall and his family would receive properties in Avenue Crescent and Berrymead Gardens, while Ms Thomas and husband Lloyd got most of the cash in her bank accounts and houses in Stuart Road and Avenue Gardens.But another will was then made in 2011, under which all four properties went to his sister and brother-in-law, while they would continue to receive the majority of her savings.Mr MacDougall and Ms Thomas would split the small amount that was left.But due to the costs and expenses of estate administration, that was 'likely to be worth nil,' Mr Martin said.Now suing, Mr MacDougall claims the will is invalid due to 'presumed undue influence,' having been made at a time when his mother was elderly and dependent on his sister and brother-in-law.He is also challenging a 2015 gift to Ms Thomas and Lloyd of the Avenue Crescent house, which he says was promised to him and worth £1.7m, but that his sister had put at under £1million. The house at the heart of dispute over over estate of Jeanne MacDougallRead More 'Starmer always chickens out': After PM's farm IHT U-turn insiders say he could cave over pub taxes The lease on the Avenue Gardens house was also granted at an undervalue - £400,000 when it was worth £615,000 - to his sister's daughter, he claims.Mr MacDougall claimed said his sister and brother-in-law were guilty of 'financial abuse' of his mother while looking after her affairs under a power of attorney.Mr Martin, his barrister, added that more than £2m left Mrs MacDougall's bank accounts between 2012 and 2020, with less than £500,000 being attributed to spending for her own benefit.'From 2012, and continuing until the deceased's death in 2020, the defendants began to treat the deceased's bank accounts as their own personal bank accounts by incurring, or causing the deceased to incur, substantial expenditure for their own benefit and for the benefit of their family,' he said.'In 2017, approximately £362,587.30 was expended from the deceased's bank accounts, with the deceased's debit card in use almost every day.'The payments made by the defendants included, for example, paying for their daughter's wedding at the five-star Savoy Hotel in London, shopping on Oxford Street, flights, spending on holiday in Spain, £30,000 to the car manufacturer Jaguar and meals out at the Ivy.'The claimant estimates from an analysis of the deceased's bank statements provided by the defendants that, between January 2012 and April 2020, the total sum of £2,153,049.88 was expended from the deceased's bank accounts.'The same analysis indicates that only a small proportion of the expenditure - currently estimated to be circa £468,034.23 - represents expenditure which was attributable to the deceased.'Attacking the 2011 will, Mr Martin claimed it should be ruled invalid and her earlier 2008 will reinstated, under which Mr MacDougall would be entitled to the Avenue Crescent house and the proceeds from the 2017 sale of Berrymead Gardens - likely to total well over £2m in assets.'Between approximately 2011 and 2020, the deceased suffered from dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, which quickly progressed to the point where she had difficulty recognising her family and caring for herself,' he said.'During this same time period, the deceased lived with the defendants and then in a care home, and was almost entirely reliant upon the defendants to care for her and to look after her finances.'He added: 'The available evidence shows that the defendants were always present and involved when the deceased dealt with her financial and testamentary affairs. There is no example during the relevant period of the deceased dealing with such matters on her own.'Both the making of the 2011 will... and the lifetime transactions which are the subject of this claim form part of a pattern of behaviour directed to divestiture of the deceased's estate in favour of the defendants and their family.'For Ms Thomas and her husband, barrister Alexander Learmonth KC accepted they had exceeded their authority under the power of attorney, but did not do so deliberately, having misunderstood what they were entitled to do.'They believed that as attorneys they were entitled to act in any way that the deceased could herself have acted and that they should do whatever they believed the deceased wanted or would want them to do on her behalf,' he said in their defence to the claim.'The defendants acted at all times in good faith and never acted in bad faith in what they sincerely believed to be the best interests of the deceased and in accordance with what they understood to be her wishes, having regard to the advice she had received and the wishes she had when capacitous of reducing her liability to inheritance tax by spending generously on herself and others, and by making lifetimes gifts in favour of her intended beneficiaries.'He said that, even under the 2008 will which Mr MacDougall accepted, his sister would inherit all of the money in the accounts from which the money was spent.'It follows that if, on the taking of an account or otherwise, any transactions carried out by the defendants on the named accounts were found to be void or liable to be rescinded, the money should be restored to the named accounts from which it came, and would then pass to the second defendant according to the terms of the 2011 will or the 2008 will.'Arguing for the 2011 will, he said it was intended to result in Gary getting virtually nothing and was logical due to the difference in relationships Ms MacDougall had with her children.'The deceased had a particularly close and affectionate relationship with.... her daughter, in contrast with her more distant and often fractious, but still loving, relationship with the claimant,' the barrister said.'She and Lloyd had helped and cared for Ms MacDougall consistently ever since her husband went into care in 2002, while Gary had 'done very little for her, and that only grudgingly.'The claimant was often rude and disrespectful to the deceased when she worked for him as his bookkeeper, accountant and company secretary, which the deceased resented,' he claimed.'By the time of the 2011 will, no symptoms of dementia had been reported and no diagnoses of dementia or Alzheimer's disease had been made.'The defendants were not involved in the will-making process.'To the defendants' knowledge, the deceased's intention behind the 2011 will, in particular by listing and specifically devising or bequeathing all her assets, including her bank accounts, was to ensure that there would be little or no residuary estate, so that the residuary gift to the claimant and [Sandra] would have little or no effect.'It is denied that the deceased was mentally infirm at the time of the 2011 will or that she was vulnerable to influence.'The case is set for a trial later this year.
