A dramatic inheritance dispute involving an £800,000 ($970,000) estate has reached London’s High Court after Carry Keats, a 92-year-old pensioner from Nomansland, Wiltshire, tore up her will on her deathbed, leaving her relatives to fight over her fortune. The family feud has pitted five of Keats’ cousins against her younger sister, Josephine Oakley, over the validity of Keats’ will and her last-minute actions.
Keats’ Final Act Sparks Court Battle
Keats, who operated a successful caravan site and held most of her wealth in her home and land in Nomansland, Wiltshire, had drafted a will 18 months before her death. The will divided her estate among five distant cousins, including David Crew and his sister Angela Crew, as well as cousins twice removed Kevin, Jason, and Leon Whitehorn. However, three weeks before her passing on 15 February 2022, Keats dramatically tore up three-quarters of her will while in hospital, leaving the future of her estate in legal limbo.
Keats’ destruction of the will, which she undertook with her bare hands, has now become the focus of a legal battle between her cousins and her younger sister, Josephine Oakley, who stands to inherit everything if the court finds the will was legally revoked. Keats’ act, witnessed by her solicitor, was reportedly motivated by a family rift after her cousins suggested placing her in a nursing home if she experienced another fall.
Love-Hate Relationship Between Sisters
Keats and Oakley, who shared a complicated relationship, grew closer in the final years of Keats’ life. Oakley told the court that despite their nine-year age gap and a history of disagreements, she supported her sister during her last years, visiting her almost daily in hospital and taking her roast dinners every Sunday. According to Oakley, Keats made the decision to revoke her will after falling out with the cousins over their proposed nursing home plan, which Keats vehemently opposed.
Keats’ lawyer, Hafwen Webb, supported Oakley’s version of events, stating that Keats, despite her frailty, was fully aware of her actions and intended to revoke the will. “She was still the same old Carry. She knew who I was and why I was there,” Webb told the court. “I told her repeatedly that if she died intestate, Jo would inherit. She said their father would be pleased.” Webb added that Keats had previously visited her law firm in November 2021 with the express purpose of cutting the cousins out of her will, which had been drafted in 2020.
Legal Questions Over the Will’s Revocation
The case has raised questions about whether Keats successfully revoked her will, as her cousins argue that she was too weak to fully tear the document. According to The Wills Act 1837, for a will to be legally destroyed, the individual must either fully destroy it themselves or clearly authorise someone to do so. David Crew, who was close to Keats and her late husband for decades, claims that Keats never intended for Oakley to inherit her estate, citing Keats’ longstanding disapproval of Oakley’s lifestyle, particularly accusations of infidelity in her younger years.
David Crew, along with his sister Angela and their cousins, contend that Keats lacked the physical strength to complete the destruction of the will and that her solicitor’s assistance in tearing up the remaining portion was not properly authorised. “Did the deceased sufficiently destroy the will? Did the deceased authorise Hafwen Webb to complete the destruction or acquiesce in the same?” asked Simon Sinnatt, representing the cousins. Sinnatt also questioned Keats’ mental capacity at the time, given that she was on pain medication and in poor health.
Conflicting Claims on Keats’ Intentions
In contrast, Oakley’s barrister, Christopher Jones, argued that Keats had made a clear and deliberate decision to revoke the will after feeling betrayed by her cousins. “She was adamant that she did not wish to keep the 2020 will as she did not want the Crews to inherit,” Jones told the court, describing how Keats became upset with the cousins after they suggested placing her in a care home. He also highlighted how Oakley had been a consistent source of support for her sister, handling grocery shopping, hospital visits, and daily care in the last years of Keats’ life.
Jones further noted that Keats was “stubborn and old-fashioned,” preferring to reward people based on her current relationships. He suggested that Keats’ decision to revoke the will reflected her evolving relationship with Oakley and her disappointment with the cousins’ actions.
Cousins Claim Keats Disapproved of Sister’s Past
David Crew, however, maintained that Keats had consistently voiced her disapproval of Oakley’s past behaviour, particularly regarding alleged marital infidelity. “Carry was very lucid in what she told me,” Crew testified, claiming that Keats had expressed her disdain for Oakley’s actions and made it clear that she did not want her sister to inherit anything. Crew told the court that Keats had confided in him about her feelings and that Oakley was never mentioned in any previous versions of her will.
The cousins also argue that Keats did not have the mental capacity on her deathbed to make such a dramatic change to her estate plan. They believe that the destruction of the will should be deemed invalid due to her weakened state and the involvement of her solicitor in the final act.
A Complex Legal Fight
As the High Court deliberates over whether Keats’ destruction of the will was legally valid, the case highlights the complexities of family dynamics and inheritance law. If the court finds that Keats successfully revoked her will, Oakley will inherit the entire £800,000 estate. If not, the cousins could see the 2020 will reinstated, dividing the fortune among them as originally planned.
Deputy Master John Linwood has reserved his judgement, leaving the future of Keats’ estate undecided. The case underscores the importance of clear and legally sound estate planning, particularly in families with longstanding tensions.
For wills to be legally valid in the UK, they must meet specific criteria, including being made voluntarily, signed in the presence of two witnesses, and properly executed. Any changes to a will must follow the same formal process to avoid disputes like the one currently unfolding in the Keats family .
