A son has won a £700,000 legal battle against his younger sister after a video showed her holding and ‘propelling’ her dying mother’s pen to sign her fortune over to her.
Margaret Baverstock, 76, had been so ill on her deathbed in March 2021 she could ‘barely flicker an eyelid’.
But she ‘signed’ a will cutting her son John Baverstock out of her fortune, instead leaving everything to her daughter Lisa.
It meant John, 61, was left with nothing from his mother’s estate when she died eight days later. All her wealth, including her house in Herne Hill, south London, went to his 55-year-old sister.
But after viewing a video showing his sibling ‘forcing’ her mother to sign the document he took the case to the High Court.
And now after seeing the film of Lisa guiding and manipulating Mrs Baverstock’s hand, a judge declared the will invalid – handing John half of his mother’s money.
Ruling on the case, Judge Jane Evans-Gordon said she was satisfied that Margaret ‘had no idea what was going on’ at the time the document was signed, meaning the will was invalid.
Suffering from advanced dementia, arthritis and suspected lung congestion, the dying woman was in no position to sign her name or even understand what she was being asked to sign, the judge decided.
A court exhibit shows the scene as Margaret Baverstock’s alleged final will was made with her daughter Lisa Baverstock guiding her hand
John Baverstock, 61, challenged the will at Central London County court alleging that his sister has forced his mother to sign away her fortune
Lisa Baverstock claimed the will had been changed in line with her dying mother’s wishes
Margaret Baverstock died in March 2021, at which point she was described as being so ill she could ‘barely flicker an eyelid’
Central London County Court heard Margaret had been diagnosed with dementia in 2014 and made her last will ‘on her deathbed’ just eight days before she passed away.
John claimed that in the run up to his mother’s death, Lisa had grown resentful towards him and had effectively excluded him from his mother’s house.
After learning he had been cut out of the will, he challenged it on grounds that she was too mentally frail to understand what she was doing or signing.
Videos of the will being signed, produced for the court by Lisa herself, also cast doubt on its validity, showing their mum struggling through her final testament while ‘terminally ill’
The films showed former care worker Margaret could only signal her assent to the most basic questions by saying ‘yeah’ or by simply grunting.
John’s barrister, Mark Jones, described Lisa as ‘repeatedly attempting to place a pen into her mother’s right hand in a manner by which the deceased could hold or grip the same’.
‘She finally placed a pen between her fingers…and placed first her right hand and then her left hand over the deceased’s hand,’ he added.
‘By force and motion of her own left hand,’ she then ‘propelled’ her mother’s writing hand to mark the will, he explained.
Lisa Baverstock seen holding then pen and the will as her dying mother lay in bed
The will itself was a homemade document printed from an online template and drafted by Lisa, naming her as Margaret’s executor and sole beneficiary.
John claimed his sister, who moved into their mum’s home to help care for her in 2019, had become increasingly suspicious and resentful towards him, climaxing in a row in February 2021 at the family home.
The ‘catalyst’ for the row was Lisa’s fear that ‘someone was trying to sell the property without her knowledge’, explained her brother’s barrister.
‘Lisa threatened to call the police if John would not return the house keys and leave the property, which he did without further demur,’ said Mr Jones.
‘John speculates, ex post facto, as to whether this was manufactured by Lisa to seek to exclude and discredit him in his late mother’s eyes.’
But Lisa, a former coach driver who represented herself in court, said her mother had been adamant that she should inherit her home, insisting that she wanted the will drawn up to reflect her wishes.
She said she gave up everything to care for her mother 24/7, claiming that she had begged her brother ‘crying on the phone to come down and give me respite’ and maintaining that from 2017 onwards John ‘could not be bothered’ with his mum.
‘As to the will, it was basically how my mother wanted her wishes done,’ Lisa told the court. ‘She didn’t want my brother to inherit anything and made that perfectly clear to me over the course of the years.’
In the video which was shown to the court, Lisa holds her mother’s hand as she signed the document
John, however, insisted that he did his utmost to see and help out their mum – ‘visiting her regularly, weekly or fortnightly’ until his sister effectively shut him out.
Questioning her brother in the witness box, Lisa asked: ‘Do you recall mum telling you to get out of the house?’ to which he replied: ‘I don’t recall that, the only person who tried to get me out of the house was my sister – you.’
Declaring the will invalid, the judge said the video showed that Margaret could barely ‘flicker an eyelid’ when one of the witnesses began reading out its contents, adding that the pensioner did not read the document herself.
‘She could not sign it herself because she was unable to hold the pen or move her hand to write her name,’ she said.
‘Lisa manipulated her hand and herself physically caused the deceased’s hand to move and make marks on the document.’
Asked repeatedly by Lisa or her witness if she was ‘alright’ with the documents being read to her, Margaret sporadically responded with a ‘yeah’ or what the judge described as an ‘uh’ sound, before Lisa continued to the signing stage of executing the will.
She then secured her mother’s signature by placing a pen in her hand and ‘moving her hand across the paper to make her signature marks’.
Referring to the video transcript, the judge noted: ‘while doing this Lisa says to the deceased: ‘ready Mum, do you agree to this? There’s no response and Lisa says again to her mum – ok? And the deceased responds ‘yeah’.’
Lisa had insisted during the trial that her mother was still mentally capable when she signed her will and refused to accept that she had dementia.
Although very frail, Margaret – who Lisa said ‘died in her arms’ – was still able to take in the world around her and enjoyed a ‘laugh and a joke’.
But ruling that the documents were not properly executed, the judge said: ‘It’s common ground that the deceased was unable to pick up the pen and put it into her hand due to her contractions.
‘Lisa Baverstock physically manhandled the pen into her hand,’ she told the court, adding that Margaret’s eventual signature ‘bore no resemblance’ to an example of her authentic signature dating from 2017.
‘I am satisfied that the deceased had no idea what was going on. She was unable to act independently and, although she responded with a ‘yeah’ or even a grunt when addressed as mum, that was simply a response to being directly addressed and didn’t indicate consent to signing the will or acknowledging its contents.
‘She looked completely blank during the reading of the will and on all save one occasion she only responded to her daughter.
‘At no point did Margaret ask Lisa for help in signing the will or direct her to sign the will on her behalf. Nobody ensured that she understood what was happening by asking her questions about the contents of the will or asking her to tell them her wishes, and she cannot fairly be said to have signed the will.’
On top of finding that the will wasn’t properly executed, the judge found that Margaret lacked the necessary ‘testamentary capacity’ and didn’t ‘know and approve’ the contents of the will.
‘The deceased was also extremely frail and on her deathbed. In these circumstances, it was necessary to question Margaret to ensure her understanding.
‘Merely reading out the document and asking if she understood it was not enough.’
With no other known will in existence, the judge held that Margaret Baverstock died ‘intestate,’ which means brother and sister must now split her £700,000 assets down the middle, although Lisa must also pay John’s legal fees, estimated at up to £80,000.
