Will: Testator was psychologically vulnerable

Failures by a will-writing company were among circumstantial evidence that led a High Court master to decide a will was made under undue influence.

Master Clark pronounced against the will written by Sheila Carter in 2015 after deciding it was procured “by some form of pressure exerted” by John Quinn, “founded on Sheila’s total dependence on him, and her pathological anxiety and fear of being alone”.

The claimant, Shanaz Karim, was Ms Carter’s live-in carer many years and was named executor and primary beneficiary of her will in 2012.

She sought to revoke the grant of probate in respect of the 2015 will, of which Mr Quinn was the sole beneficiary. Ms Carter died in September 2016 aged 87. She was unmarried and had no children or close family.

Mr Quinn was one defendant and the other was solicitor Dean Steele, whom Mr Quinn had appointed as his attorney in 2016 to seek a grant of probate, the executors of the 2015 will having renounced their appointment.

Mr Steele obtained a grant of letters of administration with the will annexed for the use and benefit of Mr Quinn in 2018.

Master Clark recorded that Ms Carter first met Mr Quinn in 2013, during her short stay in a hospital where he was visiting his daughter.

He then became an increasingly important figure in her life and Ms Karim left her post in 2014.

Soon after, Ms Carter moved to a care home and Ms Karim was told by staff that Mr Quinn had banned her, and Ms Carter’s close friends, from visiting.

For over two years until Ms Carter died, there were substantial cash withdrawals from her bank account, totaling £27,252.

The master said: “It is difficult to see how or why Sheila would have needed this money for her own expenses when she was living in a care home and bedbound. Since Mr Quinn was the only person in regular contact with Sheila during this period, I find that he took her to the bank (or cashpoint) to withdraw these sums.”

The 2015 will was drafted by now-defunct will-writing firm Damsons. The evidence showed that the initial contact was made by Mr Quinn’s wife. The contact number provided for Ms Carter was Mr Quinn’s mobile number, and he was with her when she gave her instructions by telephone.

Damsons made no inquiries as to her age and did not explore why she wanted to completely change her will. The firm took no steps to satisfy itself that Mr Quinn was not exerting pressure on her, the master said.

Damsons also did not arrange execution of the will and there was no evidence about the circumstances of this.

While Master Clark rejected the claims that Ms Carter lacked testamentary capacity or that the will was created without her knowledge and approval, the judge found undue influence, even though there was no direct evidence of it.

She listed 16 facts that pointed towards it, including that Ms Carter was “psychologically very vulnerable” and “very susceptible to changing her decisions” – with her GP back in 2012 considering that she was at risk of undue influence.

Mr Quinn “created an emotional dependence on himself by Sheila, by frequent visits, telling Sheila that he was in love with her, and kissing her”; he also isolated her from Ms Karim, her friends and support network.

The master noted that Ms Carter did not initiate the process of changing her will and that it was not prepared by the solicitors she had previously used for her affairs, including the 2012 will.

“The instructions for the 2015 will were given by telephone with Mr Quinn present, and no attempt was made to ascertain whether they represented Sheila’s independent wishes,” she went on.

All of “this circumstantial evidence” compelled the conclusion that the 2015 will was made under pressure from Mr Quinn.

“In this context, it is significant that Mr Quinn has not sought to defend the claim, nor to provide any explanation for any of his actions.

“In addition, or alternatively, in my judgment, Sheila’s testamentary intentions were vitiated by fraud. She believed that Mr Quinn had a romantic interest in her and was going to marry her, and Mr Quinn must have been the source of that belief. Mr Quinn’s conduct (kissing her in the hospital) confirm this.”

The judge added that, if she were wrong about that too, the execution of the 2015 will was obtained by fraudulent calumny because Mr Quinn had manipulated Ms Carter with lies about Ms Karim, such as that she was poisoning Ms Carter.