By Ashley Young-
A solicitor has been described by a judge as ‘reckless and quite possibly dishonest’ over the preparation of a will for his client’s £100m fortune.
Mr Justice Michael Green lambasted wills specialist Daniel Curnock in his published report about the case in which he stated that by giving ‘untruthful evidence’ which could lead to ‘serious consequences’ for him as a result of his findings.
The case concerned a will left by one of Southampton’s most prominent and wealthy characters, following a deep feud between his offspring and their children, some of whom had already been targeted by crime gangs following news of his death.
Bill Reeves, 47, was left just personal belongings when his affluent father Kevin rewrote his will to leave the majority of his vast fortune to his sister before his death in 2019.
Former hairdresser daughter Louise, 35, stood to inherit her father’s Rolls Royce and assets worth up to £80million, while Bill got a clutch of personal effects worth about £200,000.
Lawyers for Louise say there was ample evidence that Kevin wanted Louise to take the reins of his empire when he died and that Bill – already rich – did not need his help. Lawyers for Bill say father and son had a ‘good relationship’ and that Kevin – for whom ‘blood was thicker than water’ – never gave any indication that he was going to cut his son out of his inheritance.
Her barrister, Thomas Dumont QC, insisted before Mr Justice Michael Green that Kevin had not talked through the will with Louise before he signed it in 2014.
‘As we now know, Kevin did not discuss his testamentary intentions with Louise prior to making the will, though he told Bill in her hearing that he (Bill) would have to paddle his own f****** canoe’, said the QC
Louise Reeves (pictured), who could get £80million under her father’s will, has been accused of ‘coercing’ Kevin Reeves into leaving her most of his fortune as she is allegedly ‘materialistic’
Mr Dumont said a solicitor’s notes for the will showed Kevin believed Bill was ‘doing very well in his own right’ and did ‘not feel he needed to benefit from the estate’.
‘He slowly trained and cultivated Louise to take over running of the business so that, as he anticipated, by the time of his death she would be helping to run the business that she was to inherit’, he argued.
‘Kevin loved Louise, and he also knew that she had the strength to succeed in his businesses, though he warned her that she would have to be tough – the vultures would be coming.’
Constance McDonnell QC had argued the decision to completely change the will could only be explained by Louise exerting influence over Kevin, who was ill with a lung disease.
Extraordinary
Reeves was an extraordinary man who during his life built a fortune of up to £100 million from nothing. He died, unexpectedly, on 3 February 2019 at the age of 71 although he had been unwell for many years with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, or emphysema. His death has unleashed a bitter feud between his children and grandchildren that culminated in a three week trial during .
The Claimant, Ms Louise Reeves, who is the youngest daughter of the deceased applied to the courts to uphold a 2014 will in solemn form of law. Under the 2014 will, the Claimant received a specific property and the deceased’s Rolls Royce Phantom but most significantly she was left 80% of the deceased’s residuary estate.
Property tycoon Mr Reeves (pictured) had four children but left 80 per cent of his £100million fortune to his youngest daughter, Louise, 35, when he died aged 71 in 2019, the court heard
Her half-sister, Lisa Murray, the Third Defendant (Lisa) was left the remaining 20% of the residuary estate, together with a specific property. Lisa gave evidence in support of the claimant in the proceedings
On the other side of the argument and opposing the probate being granted of the 2014 will is the Second Defendant, Simon Frain (aka Simon Reeves, aka Bill Reeves) (Bill) ,who is the second son of the deceased. He contests the claim that the deceased was aware of or even approved the contents of the 2014 will. Rather, he insists it was procured and executed by the deceased, as a result of undue influence exercised by the Claimant on him.
Bill was seeking to propound an earlier will made on 18 April 2012 (the 2012 will) by which the deceased’s residuary estate was split as to 80% between the Claimant, Lisa and Bill (ie 26.67% to each child) and the remaining 20% was split equally between the Fourth and Fifth Defendants (Ryan and Ria, respectively). Ryan and Ria are both grandchildren of the deceased as their father is Mark Reeves (Mark), the eldest son of the deceased.
The 446-paragraph judgment followed a claim from Louise Reeves to uphold the 2014 will of her father, property dealer Kevin Reeves, following his death three years ago.
Louise Reeves received 80% of the deceased’s estate, with her half-sister Lisa Murray receiving the other 20%. Other family members opposed probate being granted and said the 2014 will had been the result of ‘undue influence’. A will prepared in 2012 had split the estate more equally across the deceased’s relatives and all parties accepted there was a ‘dramatic change’ between the two wills.
A dramatic change between the 2012 will and the 2014 will, led to the deceased’s son, Bill, and the deceased’s grandchildren, Ryan and Ria, were almost completely left out of the 2014 will (Bill was only entitled to a third of the deceased’s chattels) and the question is whether the deceased truly intended to do that.
Strange
The judge said the manner in which Curnock prepared the 2014 will was ‘very strange’. Despite his client’s wealth, Curnock insisted that because Mr Reeves had negotiated a fixed fee of £140 plus VAT, he would not be able to provide a first class service. The court heard that Curnock compared the quality of service he provided as ‘akin to the quality of clothes at Primark’.
The judge said it was ‘extraordinary’ that the solicitor annotated with deletions and amendments the original signed and properly executed 2012 will while it was still valid, and that Curnock was at a loss to explain why he did that.
It was also noted by the judge that Curnock had an ‘annoying habit of buying time in the witness box’ by insisting on reading the whole of every document he was taken to, and he persistently tried to avoid answering the question by asking questions back to counsel or the court.
The judge added that Curnock ‘was a most unsatisfactory witness whose evidence cannot be tested by reference to his own attendance notes because those attendance notes are themselves under challenge’. It was further observed that there was ‘far more’ to the relationship between Louise Reeves and Curnock than either of them had said. The court heard there were a number of text messages sent between them in December 2013 and a witness to a meeting from that time said there was ‘familiarity’ between the two.
The judge said: ‘It is actually quite distressing to say that I cannot safely rely on the evidence from an officer of the court but I do not think he was giving truthful evidence about how he took instructions, prepared the 2014 will and the relationship between him and the claimant.’
He concluded that while the involvement of a solicitor would usually strengthen the presumption of validity of a will, in this case it was ‘quite the reverse’.
The overall aim of the court in this case is to establish whether the testator was able to exercise his own free will in making his will and whether the will truly reflects his testamentary wishes.
The opposing sides to the claim presented conflicting positions in relation to whether the testator could actually read properly. The Claimant’s witnesses all saying that the deceased could read perfectly well, although admitting that he could barely write; whereas Bill’s witnesses were saying that it was obvious and well known that the deceased could not read. I will have to decide whether this is correct and its impact on whether the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will.
The judge ruled that the claimant had not proved that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2014 will. The undisputed 2012 will was ruled to be valid.