Two nephews are locked in a ₤ 400,000 will contest the fortune of a ‘houseproud’ widow, who disinherited one side of her family after they recommended she enter into a care home.

Doreen Stock, 86, passed away childless in 2021 and left her whole estate to her nephew, Simon Stock, and his wife Catherine, who lived just a couple of minutes from her south London home.
northeastern.edu
But her Michigan-based great-nephew, 39-year-old Ben Chiswick, has actually now released a quote to acquire the lot himself - despite not visiting and even talking to her over the phone given that his relocate to the US 8 years back.

Propulsion engineer Mr Chiswick had been due to inherit her fortune under a previous will composed almost 40 years back in 1986 when he was a baby, however was significantly disinherited by his great-aunt a year before her death.

The row erupted after his moms and dads suggested Ms Stock hang around in a care home while they delighted in a three-week holiday.

Fighting to reinstate the previous will, Mr Chiswick claims Ms Stock, who he states was a ‘component in his youth,’ was too stricken by dementia to properly comprehend what she was doing when she altered her testament.

However, Simon and his wife are battling the case, claiming Mr Chiswick - who has resided in the US because 2017 - had no ‘meaningful relationship’ with Ms Stock beyond his early years while Mr Stock had actually been ‘the closest thing to a boy she had’.

Sitting at Central London County Court, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon heard that ‘independent’ and sometimes ‘persistent’ Ms Stock had a deep emotional attachment to her home in Charminster Road, Mottingham, having actually shared it with her spouse Samuel till his death in 2001.

Ben Chiswick, 39, visualized right with dad Brent, is challenging Doreen Stock’s will in the courts after she disinherited him a year before her death

Doreen Stock, 86, died childless in 2021 and left her whole estate to her nephew, Simon Stock (imagined), and his better half Catherine

With no children of her own, Ms Stock’s very first will, made in 1986, left her estate to Mr Chiswick, son of her niece Patricia Chiswick and spouse Brent.

The estate principally includes the Mottingham house, which is valued online at about ₤ 400,000.

The court heard Ms Stock had had a good relationship with the Chiswicks, who assisted her with her shopping and visited her routinely.

She even made a long lasting power of lawyer in their favour, but before she died withdrawed the file and changed her will, leaving everything to a nephew on her hubby’s side.

Challenging the will, Mr Chiswick claims that his great-aunt’s dementia in her last years implies there is serious doubt whether she had the needed capability to make the changes.

And he stated the reality there was no conversation with his side of the household about the new will suggested ‘something not right’ about her change of mind.

‘Doreen and I had an actually delighted relationship and she comprehended that leaving her estate to me would make an enormous difference to my life,’ he stated in his proof.

For Simon and Catherine, lawyer James McKean informed the court that Ms Stock had actually likewise been close to Simon, who was ‘the closest thing to a child she had,’ contributing to his school charges as a kid.

And although she previously had a close relationship with Mr Chiswick’s parents, that was ruined when they suggested she enter into a care home in 2019.

Patricia had then scheduled a ‘capability evaluation’ for her aunt, which the lawyer said led to Ms Stock fearing her independence was being threatened and ultimately changing her will.

The estate primarily includes the Mottingham house, which is valued online at about ₤ 400,000

Can we gift our daughter 3 of the bedrooms in our house to lower estate tax expense?

The court heard there had been ‘building resentment’ with the way her power of attorney was being administered, which ‘lastly boiled over in the summertime of 2019 when the Chiswicks made an ill-judged - though perhaps well-intentioned - tip to Doreen that she spend a period in residential care.

‘Doreen was, by all accounts, jealously independent. It is little wonder that she discovered the proposal to be worrying and offensive.

‘No doubt Doreen was worried about the prospect of entering into a home, then was asked to undergo the capability assessment, and put two and 2 together.’

Within weeks of the evaluation, which resulted in a report stating she ‘did not have capability,’ she had begun actions to revoke the power of attorney and make a brand-new will in Simon and Catherine’s favour, he informed the judge.

Quizzing Patricia Chiswick in the witness box, he included: ‘Doreen enjoyed her home and it had been her and Samuel’s home before his death. There was a deep psychological connection to that residential or commercial property.

‘Saying to Doreen that she should leave that residential or commercial property and spend some time in a care home was offending to her, wasn’t it?

‘From Doreen’s point of view, this should have looked a real threat to her independence.’

But Patricia denied upsetting the pensioner, firmly insisting that the plan was only ever for a brief break in a care home while she and her husband went on vacation.

‘It was simply a suggestion since we do not normally go away for 3 weeks at a time, and I think she had actually been rather unhealthy and her health was weakening in general,’ she stated.

‘I was concerned about leaving her and I thought it would be quite good if she could go someplace where she could be taken care of while we were away.

‘It was absolutely stressed that it was for three weeks. There was no tip she was going to remain there forever.’

The Chiswicks did not visit Ms Stock once again between the capability assessment in 2019 and her death in May 2021.

For Patricia’s child Mr Chiswick, who is the complaintant in the event, barrister Simon Lane said that, at the time she made the new will, she was ‘susceptible and was behaving out of character.’

The 2019 evaluation carried out after the suggestion of a care home move had actually led to a professional’s finding that she ‘did not have capacity,’ he stated.

But Mr McKean stated the assessment was lacking, with Ms Stock answering with ‘prickly hostility’ when she was quizzed about things that made no sense to her, such as a fire which never in fact occurred.

Other assessments around the exact same time had actually resulted in findings that she did have capacity, although she was suffering with ‘moderate’ dementia,’ he said.

‘Doreen may have had some memory issues, however capacity and memory are various monsters,’ he said.

‘The court will struggle to find any proof of impaired cognition or thinking. On the contrary, Doreen’s behaviour, values and thinking were consistent and possible at all times.’

He stated there was factor for her to decide to change her will, the last being made more than thirty years formerly, which by then Mr Chiswick - living and working on the other side of the Atlantic - would have been ‘far from her mind as a .’

He had actually not seen her once again and even spoken on the phone after moving to the US, while many of the proof of their relationship originated from when he was a kid.

On the other hand, Mr Stock and his better half had been able to visit her regularly, living not far from her in Eltham, south London, he stated.

‘The court can be surprised neither by the making of the challenged will, nor by Doreen’s option of recipients,’ he included.

The judge is expected to give her ruling on the case at a later date.