A woman who inherited her father’s £600,000 fortune has been left with almost nothing after losing a court battle to her ‘bad tempered’ little sister.
Anju Patel, 58, has lost almost all her inheritance money despite seemingly being left a £600,000 house by her father, Laxmikant Patel, who died aged 85 in October 2021.
In a will made just two months before her father’s death, Ms Patel received the home, while her younger sister, Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, and older brother, Piyush Patel, 62, were given just £250 each.
Laxmikant Patel’s decision to virtually disinherit two of his children could be explained by a growing mistrust he had developed towards them, Ms Patel claimed, who said ‘they were only after his property’.
However, Ms Stewart-Brown argued a ‘cloud of suspicion’ hung over the way the will was drawn up and executed in August 2021, when he was terminally ill, frail and in a hospital subject to Covid restrictions.
Last December at London‘s High Court, Deputy Master Jason Raeburn ruled in favour of Ms Stewart-Brown, upholding a 2019 will that split the £600,000 estate roughly three ways between the siblings, declaring the circumstances of the 2021 will are ‘highly suspicious’.
As well as losing almost two-thirds of her inheritance, Ms Patel has now been ordered to pay her sister’s court costs of the fight, which lawyers say could be over £400,000. She will also have to fund her own undisclosed legal costs.
Vijaykant Patel, the executor of the 2021 will, was also made jointly and severally liable for paying Ms Stewart-Brown’s costs.
Anju Patel, 58, (pictured) has lost almost all her inheritance money despite seemingly being handed a £600,000 house by her father, Laxmikant Patel, who died aged 85 in October 2021
Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, (pictured) contested the will made in 2021 after being left with just £250, while her sister received the £600k home
London High Court upheld Laxmikant Patel’s 2019 will, which had left £50,000 to Ms Patel, with the rest of the estate split in shares of 33 per cent to each of the children and one per cent to a charitable trust. Pictured: The £600,000 home in Cambridge Road, Harrow
The decision means that the approximately £250,000 which Ms Patel is entitled to under the upheld 2019 is set to be completely wiped out by the costs of the case.
The court heard that Laxmikant Patel’s 2019 will had left £50,000 to Ms Patel, with the rest of the estate split in shares of 33 per cent to each of the children and one per cent to a charitable trust.
But the document made in 2021 left virtually everything to Ms Patel, with her two siblings being handed just £250 each.
At trial, Ms Patel explained the move, telling the judge Laxmikant Patel had complained that Ms Stewart-Brown and Piyush Patel had failed to show him ‘true affection’.
When asked to explain why he had not left them anything at all, replied: ‘They have failed in their sense of duty, but as a father I have not forgotten them’.
He was also said to have labelled his son, Piyush Patel, a ‘hugely controlling’ figure and complained of Ms Stewart-Brown’s ‘bad temper’ and of her taking ‘massive advantage’ of her elderly dad.
The court heard Laxmikant Patel was a gentle and hard-working man who had carved out a new life for his family after migrating from Uganda in the early 1970s, working shifts at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham while his wife, Shardaben, ran a newsagent’s.
A religious man, Laxmikant Patel attended the Swaminarayan temple in Neasden, north London, every day, and he and his wife donated around £180,000 to the temple throughout their lives.
By the time of his death in 2021, his main asset was his £600,000 home in Cambridge Road, Harrow.
That house was left entirely to Anju under his last will, a decision which Ms Stewart-Brownbarrister, Tim Sherwin, described as ‘most odd’.
He claimed that Ms Patel, a Hare Krishna follower, had done what she could to distance her dad from his accustomed Swaminarayan faith.
Mr Sherwin told the judge: ‘The evidence shows a clear pattern of isolation and control over the deceased on the part of Anju and (her husband) which became especially stark when he was in the hospital at the end of his life. When, of course, the purported 2021 will was made.’
Ms Stewart-Brown’s legal team claimed Laxmikant Patel’s apparent change of heart made no sense in light of his clear wish to split his estate predominantly equally in his previous 2019 and 2018 wills.
Ms Patel’s barrister, James Kane, argued that by October 2019, Laxmikant Patel had formed a ‘sharply negative’ view of both Piyush Patel and Ms Stewart-Brown
He told the court that of alleged comments made to the will writer in 2019 that Ms Stewart-Brown ‘has taken massive advantage of her father’, while Ms Patel remained ‘the only light in his life’.
‘Apparently, she has a bad temper,’ the will writer said of Ms Stewart-Brown.
Ms Patel claimed her Father gave instructions for the will to Vijaykant Patel, who she knew from the Hare Krishna temple and who claimed to also be a friend of her dad.
She added that he came to visit his bed at London’s Northwick Hospital, where Laxmikant Patel asked him to help prepare the will document.
Vijaykant Patel, the executor of the 2021 will, claimed to have taken notes at the hospital meeting, with Laxmikant Patel expressing ‘revulsion’ towards Ms Stewart-Brown and Piyush Patel before stating that the pair were ‘only after his property’ and ‘everything goes to Anju’.
However, after finding that the 2021 hospital bed will had not been properly witnessed, the judge said: ‘Both witnesses said they used the same pen as the deceased, but it’s plain from the face of the will that it wasn’t signed by all the participating parties using the same pen.
‘I am not therefore satisfied that a signature was made by (Laxmikant Patel) in the presence of all the witnesses at the same time, so there was no due execution of the will.’
The judge also found that there was no compelling evidence that Laxmikant Patel ‘knew and approved’ of the 2021 will.
‘The particular circumstances of the instructions and execution of the 2021 will are suspicious – highly suspicious,’ he said.
The 2021 document was a drastic change from previous even-handed wills drawn up, said the judge, adding: ‘a particular feature was that it effectively disinherited two of his three children.
‘I have arrived at the clear conclusion that those propounding the 2021 will have not discharged the burden of establishing that he knew and approved its contents.’
At a further hearing, he ordered that Ms Patel and Vijaykant Patel are each jointly liable to pay Ms Stewart-Brown’s costs of fighting the case, which Mr Sherwin said amounted to £380,000, with VAT to be added, taking the total bill to over £450,000.
She will also have to pay her own lawyers, but no figures for her own bill emerged during the hearing.
Mr Kane also asked the judge for permission to appeal against his ruling on Ms Patel’s behalf, but he was refused.
The judge also ordered an up-front payment on account of costs to be made of around £180,000 plus VAT.