Judge rules on family battle over New Forest bungalow and caravan site

A bitter dispute over the estate of a “feisty old bird” who died deliberately intestate hit the High Court in London last week. High Court judge Deputy Master Linwood ruled on Friday (15 November) that Carry Keats was in sound mind when she deliberately ripped up the master copy of her will on her deathbed at Salisbury General Hospital in February 2022. This action left her without a will in place and so her entire state automatically went to her closest living relative, her sister Josephine, with whom she had a volatile relationship. It also cut out family friends David and Angela Crew, who had been promised a large chunk of her estate and had been named as executors of her last will. At stake was a bungalow, a small caravan site and a static caravan in the New Forest, valued at around £500,000, all of which would go to Josephine. However, if the judge were to rule that Carrie was not of sound mind, the old will would apply and Josephine would be given £5,000 and a teapot. According to the ruling, Keats had a history of changing her will according to how people treated her, and the destroyed will was the sixth one she had signed. Also, according to the judgement, Keats had been in discussion with her solicitor in the weeks before her death about changing the will again. When her solicitor visited her in Salisbury General Hospital in the final weeks of her life, wearing a PPI suit because of Covid-19 restrictions, Keats decided to rip the master copy of her will into shreds. Owing to weakness, she was only able to rip off three-quarters of the document, so she asked her solicitor to help her do it. Her solicitor agreed. In his ruling, Deputy Master Linwood said that he was satisfied that Keats was acting in sound mind, and her solicitor was carrying out the wishes of her client. He said that the estate should go to Josephine. In conclusion, he cited a judgment handed down by the then Lord Chancellor in 1821. “It is one of the painful consequences of extreme old age that it ceases to excite interest and is apt to be left solitary and neglected,” the 1821 ruing said. “The control which the law gives to a man to dispose of his property is one of the most efficient means which he has in protracted life to command the attentions due to his infirmities.” Deputy Master Linwood added: “Nothing in human nature has changed over the last 200 years since that was said; nor, I presume, will it in the future. So these disputes will continue unless resolved by negotiation, which I can only urge future parties to engage in realistically and effectively.” Crew and another v Oakley and others [2024] EWHC 2847 (Ch) Business and Property Courts (Deputy Master Linwood) 15 November 2024