Langley v Qin
Background
Mr. Harrington had been married for 66 years and had a daughter (Mrs Langley) from that marriage. Having been widowed, Mr. Harrington married Ms Qin in 2019. A new Will was drafted in March 2020 which named Ms Qin and her son as the sole beneficiaries of his estate which was worth in excess of £1 million. His own daughter (Mrs Langley) was disinherited.
Mrs Langley challenged the Will on the basis that her father lacked the required mental capacity, was influenced by Ms Qin and on the grounds of want of knowledge and approval.
Findings
The court accepted that Mr Harrington suffered from a paranoid delusional disorder and held a number of fixed, false beliefs. One of these false beliefs was that he had been estranged from Mrs Langley for many years.
He also mistakenly believed that Mrs Langley had stolen his horses and that he had been a senior officer in the army.
Ms Qin’s access to Mr Harrington's bank accounts was found to demonstrate a “significant element of impropriety” which excited the suspicions of the court.
It was found that Ms Qin exercised control over Mr Harrington's finances and a "guiding hand" in shopping around local solicitors and will writers until a firm was found that was prepared to make a Will for Mr Harrington.
Mrs Langley was successful in setting aside Mr Harrington's Will and was granted her costs of the proceedings from Ms Qin on the indemnity basis (i.e. a higher recovery rate than the standard basis). However, the position is that the court cannot set aside a predatory marriage after death meaning that the marriage and the ensuing legal effect remains. It is well established law that marriage revokes a Will. This means that deceased’s estate falls to be distributed under the rules of intestacy and Ms Qin stands to inherit a lump sum and half of the remaining estate.
A real-life warning about marriage revoking a Will
Ten years ago, I won a professional negligence claim in circumstances where a solicitor failed to advise of the effect of marriage on a Will. I was instructed by the deceased’s daughter who was a disappointed beneficiary, suffering loss as a result of solicitor negligence (White v Jones).
The deceased had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and contacted the solicitor holding her Will with a view to instructing them to make certain amendments to it.
The deceased called the firm and spoke with the secretary. She explained who she was and that she wished to make changes to her Will. The secretary informed her that someone would call her back and took a note of the call which included the caller’s name and the name that she had previously been known by (prior to marriage). The Will was stored in the firm’s strong room under the deceased’s maiden name.
Several days later, a solicitor telephone the deceased to discuss the Will and during that conversation was informed that the deceased had remarried and wanted to make amendments to her Will. The solicitor said that she would be able to make the amendments and provided a cost estimate for doing so. A meeting was arranged for the deceased to attend the office. No mention was made by the solicitor that the deceased’s Will was revoked by the marriage.
On the day of the scheduled appointment, the deceased telephoned the solicitor and explained that due to her ill health, she was unable to attend. It was left that a new appointment would be made the following week. Due to the severity of her illness and prolonged stays in hospital, the deceased found it increasingly difficult to make and attend an appointment in person. The deceased subsequently called the solicitor and explained that she was worried about her Will. Her Will left her estate to her only daughter, but she wanted to ensure that her husband had a life interest in her property. She asked what would happen if she died without changing her Will and was assured by the solicitor that the Will she had made would remain valid.
When it became clear that the deceased did not have long to live, her daughter telephoned the solicitor on her behalf to discuss the Will and seek further assurance that it remained valid. The solicitor repeated the assurances that had been given to the deceased.
A few weeks later the deceased’s daughter telephoned the solicitor and informed her that the deceased had been admitted to hospital and that she was not sure whether the deceased would survive the remainder of the week. The solicitor reassured her that the deceased had a Will in place which could be amended to include a provision to allow her husband to remain living at the property. She was informed that if the deceased was not well enough to amend the Will then she, as the sole beneficiary, could choose to allow her mother’s widow to live there.
A week later the deceased passed away. The deceased’s daughter attended the solicitor’s office and informed the solicitor that she had been told by the deceased’s widow that the Will had been revoked by marriage. The solicitor left the meeting to check the position returning shortly afterwards in an extremely uncomfortable state and informing my client that the Will was "not worth the paper on which it is written".
Surprisingly our opponent was not willing to engage in settlement discussions and the matter proceeded to trial. The defendant sought to argue that they had not been formally retained. This argument was rejected by the court and our client succeeded with her claim and the recovery of her costs.
One would hope that cases of this nature are rare. If you believe that you have suffered loss as a disappointed beneficiary due to solicitor negligence or have concerns that a Will of a loved one may be invalid, I would be happy to speak with you to see if we can assist you in finding a resolution.
The information provided in this article is provided for general information purposes only, and does not provide definitive advice. It does not amount to legal or other professional advice and so you should not rely on any information contained here as if it were such advice.
Wright Hassall does not accept any responsibility for any loss which may arise from reliance on any information published here. Definitive advice can only be given with full knowledge of all relevant facts. If you need such advice please contact a member of our professional staff.
The information published across our Knowledge Base is correct at the time of going to press.
