Smooth Radio DJ battles sister over their late mom’s £1.2million property in court docket ‘conflict of inheritance’

An award-winning Smooth Radio DJ with a ‘warm and trusted voice’ has been branded a ‘monster’ by his sister during a ‘tragic war of inheritance’ over their mother’s £1.2m will.

Philip Chryssikos, 52, a voiceover artist and award-winning radio presenter with his own music show on Smooth Radio, went to war with his Girls Aloud art director sister Maria after the death of their mother Stella Chryssikos in 2020.

Maria, 56, never moved out of her mother’s west London home, caring for her in her final years, and the siblings’ relationship became ‘fraught with aggression’ before Stella’s death led to a bitter court fight over the £1.2m property.

Philip eventually sued his sister in a bid to get her out of their childhood home in Popes Lane, Acton, which they own together under their mother’s will, in order to sell it and get his inheritance.

He said Maria had the same chances in life as he had, branding her too ‘lazy’ to make a financial success of herself and insisting the property should now be sold and the money split.

But refusing his bid to evict his sister, a judge at Central London County Court said Maria – an art and production director, who has worked on adverts for well-known brands and videos for Girls Aloud – had in fact devoted many years of her life to the ‘hard job’ of being their elderly mother’s ‘primary carer.’

That was why their mother had stated in a letter that she wanted the house – although to be inherited equally – to remain Maria’s home without threat of eviction after she died, he said.

Judge Luke Ashby ruled that the house can be sold, but not until 56-year-old Maria reaches the age of 70.

But he rejected her bid for a life interest in the house and her application to bring a claim for increased provision from her mother’s will was also refused.

Central London County Court heard the siblings grew up in ‘poverty,’ having lost their father at an early age, but both forged careers in the entertainment industry.

Philip Chryssikos, 52, is a voiceover artist and award-winning radio presenter with his own show on Smooth FM, having previously worked on Classic FM, Gold Radio, Heart, LBC, LBC News, and Radio X.

According to his website, he has also used ‘his warm and trusted voice’ in linkups with ‘top brands like Virgin Atlantic, Harley-Davidson, Audi, BMW, Ford, and Tesla’.

His sister, Maria, is an art and production director, who has worked on adverts for well-known brands, on videos for Girls Aloud, TV shows including Brass Eye, and movies like Jason Statham’s The Beekeeper and The Oxford Murders with Sir John Hurt.

Relations between the siblings were poor and they frequently engaged in ‘whirlwind arguments,’ Philip told the court.

When their mother, Stella Chryssikos, died in 2020, she left their childhood home in Acton – worth up to £1.2m – to both of them in equal shares.

But they still fought and after moving out, Philip launched a court bid for an order for sale of the property so he could get his inheritance, with the result that his sister would have to get out.

However, she fought back, claiming that there had always been an agreement that the house would be there for either of them to live in for their rest of their lives.

Claiming a life interest in the property, she said it was she who had cared for their mother to the detriment of her own career, sacrificing work to look after the pensioner.

But when put to him by Maria’s barrister Richard Buston that she has been left worse off than her successful brother, Philip insisted that was her fault for being ‘lazy’.

‘She is just as renowned and well-known in her industry as I perhaps am in mine,’ he told Judge Ashby during a three-day trial last week.

‘She spent her money frivolously. She answered to nobody. She struggled to hold down work because she was lazy and couldn’t be bothered to undertake projects.

‘The money she had was frivolously spent. She decided when she worked, when she didn’t work. That was based solely on her being lazy and feeling the world owed her something.

‘My sister had the same opportunities as I had – she has chosen to carve her own path in life.’

Mr Buston told the judge that Maria had lived her entire life in the house – while Philip had spent significant periods away living with girlfriends – and thought it would be her home forever.

‘The deceased led Maria to believe that the property was to be Maria’s home for the rest of her life and that Maria – and Philip if he so wished – would always be able to live at the property,’ he said.

‘In particular, the deceased made clear to Philip and Maria from late 1999 onwards that she wanted Maria to remain at the property after her death and that she should not be evicted or have to pay rent.

‘She regularly made clear from when Maria and Philip were in their early twenties that the property should remain in both Philip’s and Maria’s names as to 100 per cent each, and if one of them died, it would go to the other.

‘The deceased was concerned to ensure that, if anything ever went wrong in any relationships that Maria and Philip had, their ability to enjoy the property would be unaffected.’

He said, relying on the promises made to her, Maria had spent a fortune on the maintenance of the house and also lost out on furthering her career while looking after their mother.

‘Maria is self-employed and the single shareholder of a limited company and thus would not receive a private pension,’ the barrister continued.

‘However, the deceased would tell Maria that she didn’t need to buy any property as an investment for her future but to invest her money in the property instead.

‘Maria was able to provide the deceased with constant care, to the detriment of her career, personal life and social life, in reliance on the deceased’s assurance that the property would always provide Maria with a home and an investment for her future.’

Giving evidence, Philip insisted that they had been ‘both joint carers’ of their late mother and that he had also spent his own money on the house.

When pushed on whether their mother had made it clear that she wanted the house to always be there for her children to live in, he replied: ‘To reside at, yes. But for life, no.

‘It was a roof over our heads. My mother never spoke of joint tenancies, she simply always referred to her will, which was 50-50.

‘During her lifetime, the house was there, beyond her lifetime it reverts to the will.

‘It was always strictly to the will. We both were aware of the will. That was fair. You can’t get fairer than 50-50 in a will from a parent.’

Giving evidence herself, Maria told the judge she had a volatile relationship with her brother, who she described as a ‘monster’ when he returned to live in the house after a relationship breakdown in 2016.

She said he wanted to build a studio in her office and ‘completely ripped the house apart. He wrecked my studio, my bedroom, my office. He absolutely hated me and for what reason I do not know.

‘He was a person I had never seen before. He was a monster.

‘I was never not working, I just took tiny jobs. All the money I had was put into the house, I never had any social life.’

Giving judgment, Judge Ashby described it as a ‘complete tragedy’ that the siblings had ended up fighting each other in court.

‘The relationship between the parties is, on any measure of it, volatile – it is one fraught with aggression,’ he said.

‘The fact they’re here is a tragic disaster. It is siblings pitting against each other in a war of inheritance. Their mother would not have wanted to see them here.’

He said the siblings’ mother’s needs had increased after 2007, which coincided with the time when Philip was spending less time at the house, as he had serious relationships.

Maria did the ‘lion’s share of care,’ he said, although Philip did more when he moved back in 2016, while both had helped financially, with Maria spending more.

He said the care she provided and a letter written by her mother in 2016 – stating her ‘wish the house to remain Maria’s residence at her expense and not be evicted’ – were crucial to his decision.

‘The claimant thinks Maria is simply lazy in respect of her working position and financial responsibility,’ he said.

‘She may not be as good with her money as he is or motivated in the same way he is.

‘The reality is she carried out a significant amount of care for her mother, the lion’s share of it at least over a 10-year period.

‘That’s a hard job. These weren’t insignificant needs. This isn’t popping in once a day. These are ongoing serious physical needs which increased over time.

‘It doesn’t surprise me at all that that would mean Maria would be more limited in terms of what work she can do.

‘I think the care in particular is an important factor.

‘When you put that together with this letter, on the balance of probabilities it paints a picture of for many years Maria being the primary carer, making sacrifices in relation to her work and career and social life, and acting to her detriment on the promise that mother wanted the property to remain her residence if she paid for it.

‘The inclusion of the line “and not to be evicted” is telling. She wanted her to be able to stay.

‘But it doesn’t say for how long. It doesn’t say “forever”.

‘It didn’t seem to me that she would want Philip to be kept out of all of his interest forever, which is effectively what would happen if there was a life interest.

‘It seems to me therefore that the intention was that it could remain as her residence for a period of time.

‘Where we get to is a licence to occupy until the earliest of when she doesn’t require the home as her residence or the age of 70.’

The judge rejected Philip’s request for an order for sale with vacant possession, while he had already dropped a claim for rent from his sister during the trial.

Maria’s bid for a life interest in the house also failed – although she was given the right to occupy until she is 70. Her application to bring a claim for increased provision from her mother’s will was also refused.

The judge said the increased provision claim was ‘completely hopeless’ and that, because neither party got all they wanted, they would each have to pay their own lawyers’ bills for the dispute.