92-year-old UK father changed his will while living with his daughter; wife was left with access to only half the money through her stepdaughter | World News

Image Credit: Picpedia.org

The England & Wales High Court has ruled on the will of Mark Briant, a 92-year-old man who changed his will while living with his daughter and son-in-law in 2022. The change reduced his wife Rosemary’s inheritance to a life interest in half of his estate, leaving her without an automatic right to the capital itself. A later challenge argued that Briant had not understood the effect of the change. In a judgment dated 23 September 2026, the High Court found that he had not known and approved the relevant part of the will and removed the restriction on his wife’s inheritance.

How did the 92-year-old father’s will change while living with his daughter

Mark Briant and Rosemary had been together for many years before marrying in 2011. Both had been married before and each had three children. They had made wills in 2012, but their circumstances changed considerably over the following decade.According to the High Court judgment in Elliott v Bateson & Anor, Briant had Parkinson’s disease and his physical health had deteriorated from 2017 onwards. Rosemary was diagnosed with dementia in May 2022. In early 2022, Briant suffered several falls and was unable to return home immediately because a suitable care package had not yet been arranged. He moved to live with his daughter Vanessa Bateson and her husband Ian in March 2022.A solicitor later visited the Batesons’ home on 11 May to discuss a new will and lasting powers of attorney. Briant’s new will was signed at the solicitor’s office on 20 May 2022. Rosemary and her son James were not aware that the new will had been made at the time.

What did Briant originally intend for his wife

The court found that Briant had initially wanted to leave Rosemary 50% of his estate. The other half was intended to go to Vanessa’s family. The estate was worth about £248,367 and consisted almost entirely of cash or similar assets.The important change came when solicitor Matthew Knight suggested that Rosemary’s 50% should be placed into a life interest trust. The idea was presented as a way of preventing the money from being available to a local authority if Rosemary later needed residential care.However, the arrangement did not give Rosemary an outright right to the capital. Instead, she was entitled to income from the trust, while Vanessa was to become the ultimate beneficiary of the capital. The court noted that Rosemary would effectively have needed Vanessa to agree to give her money from what would eventually become Vanessa’s inheritance.Legal Futures reported that Knight accepted during the case that there was no direct power in the trust allowing Rosemary to take capital from it. He also accepted that there was a strong conflict of interest because Vanessa was both a trustee and the eventual beneficiary.

The change in will was not properly understood by Briant

The central issue was not whether Briant had the mental capacity to make a will. Instead, the court considered whether he knew and approved what the final document actually did.The judge found that the evidence did not show that the solicitor had properly explained the difference between an outright gift and the proposed trust. The court noted that the change had come from Knight rather than Briant. His original instruction was to give Rosemary 50% outright, allowing her to use the money as she wished.The High Court found that changing this into a trust was a fundamental alteration. Briant needed a clear explanation that Rosemary would no longer have an automatic right to the capital and that access to it could depend on Vanessa giving away part of her future inheritance.Legal Futures reported that Knight had not read the will over with Briant before it was signed. Although Knight pointed to a letter enclosing the draft, there was no record in his attendance notes showing that he had clearly explained that Vanessa would ultimately receive the capital.

The judge’s decision about the disputed inheritance

The court concluded that Briant had not known and approved the effect of the life interest trust on the balance of probabilities. The judge also found that the evidence about whether Briant had actually read the final will was weak and inconsistent.The court therefore removed the wording that created the life interest trust. This meant that the 50% gift to Rosemary became an outright gift instead of one restricted by the trust arrangement.The judgment did not find that the solicitor had deliberately tried to conceal the consequences. Instead, the judge said Knight appeared either to have assumed that Briant had a level of legal knowledge and experience that he did not possess or had not fully considered the consequences of the alteration.

The Royal Courts of Justice of England and Wales. Image Credit: Wikipedia

What happened to the claim of undue influence

The family dispute also included an allegation that the 2022 will had been obtained through undue influence. The court rejected that claim.Rosemary had also brought a separate claim under the Inheritance Act 1975, arguing that the will did not provide reasonable financial support for her. Once the court removed the trust and restored the 50% gift as an outright inheritance, the judge decided that she had achieved everything available to her through that claim, so no additional award was made.