‘Greedy’ mom who set home possession papers on fireplace and gave £1m fortune to her daughters to maintain her advantages earlier than suing them to get it again loses courtroom battle

A ‘greedy’ divorcee who handed a £1m-plus fortune to her daughters to keep receiving state benefits has been unable to get it back after losing a court battle.

Camilla Bains, who relied on means-tested benefits due to her ill-health, was divorced from her husband in 2011, but the financial wrangling between them dragged on until it was finally settled in 2019.

She transferred £295,000 from the settlement to her two daughters – sports doctor Sonia Bains, 38, and lawyer sister Sharn Bains, 29 – after being warned by her lawyers of the risk of benefit fraud.

The mother-of-three also handed over ownership of her £800,000 house in Rosehill Gardens, Sutton, to Sonia after moving out of their matrimonial home because her ex lived nearby.

But later the family fell out and a bitter court row erupted, with Camilla laying claim to the house and repayment of the divorce monies.

Lawyers acting for Camilla claimed the money from the divorce settlement was only being held by her daughters ‘on trust’, with the proviso that she would take it back.

Meanwhile, they argued that although Sonia’s name was on the house, it had been agreed that her mother was the true beneficial owner of the five-bed property. 

Now following a two-week trial, Judge Nigel Gerald ruled that Camilla can have no claim to the return of the money or the house – after she burned trust deeds which were said to have confirmed it was hers. 

Suing at Central London County Court, Camilla tried to get the house and cash back from Sonia and her trainee solicitor sister Sharn. 

But the daughters fought back, with Sonia – a doctor for the FA and formerly for Premier League clubs including Arsenal FC and Brentford FC – branding her mother ‘motivated by greed’ and ‘jealous’ of her daughters’ success in life. 

Although Camilla had received the former matrimonial home in the 2019 divorce settlement, she wanted to move as her ex was still living next door and so a new house was bought in Rosehill Garden.

The judge said the house was in her daughter Sonia’s name, but that documents signed by mother and daughter made it clear that Camilla was the true owner.

Judge Gerald said that, although Sonia’s name was on the house, it had been agreed that her mother was the true beneficial owner.

But that changed when she was warned by her lawyers around the time of the 2019 divorce payout of the risk of benefit fraud.

A key letter was signed around that time in which the mother said she no longer had any ownership of the house and that she had burned previous trust deeds, he said.

‘In my judgment, it is plain that this document was legally effective and binding,’ he said. 

‘I also accept Sharn’s evidence that shortly after her mother signed this document, she went and burned the 2015 and 2017 Rosehill Gardens trust deeds.’

‘Mother was consciously divesting herself of her assets so as to retain her welfare benefits,’ he continued.

‘She had been alerted as to the risks of benefit fraud in May 2019. She wanted to get shot of this property so she could protect her benefits.’

Judge Gerald said the signing of the letter came three months after the 2019 consent order ending Camilla’s divorce, which had been on terms which saw Sonia receive £100,000 and Sharn £240,000.

In her court claim, Camilla said the money was only to be looked after by her daughters and that she is now entitled to get it back.

But crucially, the judge said, although £45,000 of that received by Sonia was to be held on trust for her younger brother, there was no mention in the divorce court order of the rest being held for anyone other than the recipient.

The only rights over it which Camilla had was in nominating who it was paid to and the divorce judge was told that she would not own it.

‘The lawyers and mother well understood that the recipient of the money would be the owner and not the mother,’ he said. 

‘The mother would just have to trust that person to return the money.

‘Implicit was an understanding by the mother and her lawyers that there was a risk that once the recipient got the money he or she might just keep it and not return it.’

He added: ‘It is common ground that she didn’t reveal to the benefits agency any interest in this money and that was because she knew the money wasn’t hers.

‘She wanted to avoid any sort of benefits fraud. She knew this money wasn’t her money and she was not entitled to it.

‘The £55,000 paid to Sonia and the £240,000 to Sharn was their money and effectively a gift.’

‘It would be wrong to reach the conclusion that either daughter has done the dirty on their mother,’ Justice Gerald said in his ruling.

‘Rather, it seems to me more likely than not that the mother, having gifted these monies to her children, has realised the unwisdom of her conduct and now seeks to get back that which she gifted.’

Giving judgment, the judge described a ‘very sad, troubled and unfortunate family.’

‘It would be an understatement to say that there has been a high degree of animosity, if not hate, between the children and the mother,’ he said.

However, it was not always like that, with Sonia acting as donor when she needed a third kidney transplant in 2017.

She took the drastic step of sacrificing one of her own kidneys after her mother informed her that her ‘second kidney is failing and that she is dying,’ her lawyers told the court. 

The court decision means Sonia is true owner of the house and £55,000 of the money paid to her, while Sharn owns the £240,000 she got.

The other £45,000 which went to Sonia was for the benefit of her brother, the Judge found.