Daughter wins a share of £486,000 her mother left to animal charities

By Andrew Levy for the Daily Mail
Updated: 06:28 EST, 1 April 2011

View
comments

Back for her share: Heather Ilott, 50, fell out with her mother Melita Jackson after running away at 17 to live with her boyfriend

An unemployed woman whose estranged mother bequeathed her entire £486,000 fortune to animal charities has won a landmark legal case for a share of the estate.

Heather Ilott, 50, fell out with her mother Melita Jackson after running away at 17 to live with her boyfriend.

The pair barely spoke over the next quarter of a century and when Mrs Jackson died aged 70 in 2004 she left every penny to The Blue Cross, RSPCA and RSPB.

Mrs Ilott challenged the will claiming ‘reasonable provision’ from her mother’s estate and was initially awarded £50,000 before the decision was overturned at the High Court.

But the Court of Appeal yesterday said it was ‘unreasonable’ for Mrs Jackson to disinherit her daughter, a mother of five, who can now return to the High Court to request an even larger share.

The decision was made despite Mrs Jackson insisting from beyond the grave in a ‘letter of wishes’ that her daughter had caused her ‘distress’ and should ‘expect no inheritance’.

The charities warned that the court’s decision could have a ‘devastating’ impact on charitable giving.

‘It sets a dangerous precedent where anyone could choose to appeal against the will of a close family member on the grounds of their own financial situation, regardless of the documented wishes of the deceased,’ they said.

Mrs Jackson, whose husband died in 1960, was left alone when her daughter, an only child, ran away in 1978 to live with Nicholas Ilott, a man she disapproved of.

The widow was not informed of her daughter’s wedding in 1983 and said in her letter that she had seen her daughter only twice since she left home – on her 60th birthday and in 2001.

Mrs Ilott, of Great Munden, Hertfordshire, claims they also met by chance in 1999 and there was an attempted reconciliation. The court heard that they soon fell out again when Mrs Jackson objected to her daughter naming one of her children after a relative she did not get on with and asked her to change it – but Mrs Ilott refused.

Mrs Jackson, whose estate consisted of a £250,000 house in Ware, Hertfordshire, and savings, wrote her will in 2002 and included the ‘letter of wishes’.

Mrs Ilott disputed the will under the Inheritance Act in 2007 and a district judge awarded her £50,000 after finding it did not make reasonable provision for her. She then asked the High Court to increase the sum but the charities successfully challenged the appeal, leaving her with nothing.

When she took her case to the Court of Appeal her barrister said Mrs Jackson had disinherited his client ‘not because she supported any of the charities but simply out of spite’.

Lawyers for the charities argued that Mrs Ilott had made ‘lifestyle choices’ – including having five children – which had left the family in financial difficulty and she had lived independently of her mother for 26 years.

But the court ruled Mrs Ilott should benefit from the estate, emphasising her ‘extremely modest’ circumstances, the fact that she still took care of her youngest children, had not worked for 25 years and was unlikely to find employment.

Her husband, who gave up work as a delivery driver due to a back problem, works occasionally as a ‘supporting actor’, making modest sums.

Mrs Justice Black, sitting with President of the Family Division Sir Nicholas Wall and Lady Justice Arden, said it was ‘unreasonable’ of Mrs Jackson to cut her daughter out of her will in favour of charities to which she had no prior connection.

It was not clear last night if Mrs Ilott will apply to have her share increased. The charities said they were taking advice about whether to challenge the ruling.