'Loving daughter' ends up on losing side over million-dollar inheritance
Tan Ooi Boon for The Straits Times
Nothing can blow family harmony to smithereens quite like a disputed will, as a warring brother and sister know only too well.
The fuse was lit when the sister was named in her father's will as the sole beneficiary of a multimillion-dollar house. It all seemed quite straightforward, even endearing, given that the patriarch had referred to her as "my loving daughter".
But the woman suddenly found herself out in the cold when her father made a second will that disinherited her and left everything to her brother.
Naturally, she cried foul, claiming it was not possible that her father would change his mind for no reason unless she "had made him very angry or had done something very wrong".
She contended that her father, who was 89 when the first will was drawn up in October 2011, did not understand what he was doing when he signed the second will in November 2012.
This bequeathed all his assets, including the house, to her brother while leaving nothing to her and three other siblings.
The daughter argued that this later will, which was prepared by her brother with a lawyer's help, was signed under suspicious circumstances as the lawyer was not even present to advise the father. Instead, only two friends of the family were there to witness the signing.
To add to her suspicions, her father was admitted to hospital twice in the three days before the signing due to hernia pain.
The daughter cited his hospital papers, which appeared to describe the elderly man's condition in eyebrow-raising terms such as "Alzheimer's disease" and "he cannot remember".
The fractious case provides a compelling reason for everyone to make legacy plans early to avoid their wills being challenged, such as in this instance, on claims that the documents were not properly signed due to the infirmity of old age.
So five years after her father died at age 96 in 2019, the daughter asked the High Court to determine whether their father was mentally competent to make the second will that changed her fate.
It was then that she learnt that bare allegations alone will not stand up in court. The daughter failed to call any medical professionals, including the ones who wrote on the patient's documents, to give an assessment of her late father's mental state.
As a result, she failed to counter her brother's two witnesses, who described her father as lucid and vigilant, able to remember and banter with long-time family friends.
The witnesses' accounts were convincing because one of them asked the elderly man why he chose to give everything to that son when his daughter and three other children were listed as getting "0%" of his assets.
The father replied that this son was his "favourite" who "would know what to do".
Senior High Court Judge Tan Siong Thye found both witnesses to be honest and truthful, and that their candid accounts about what happened that day showed that the elderly man knew what he was doing when he signed the 2012 will.
In ruling the will valid, Justice Tan made three observations that serve as useful lessons on legacy planning for all families.
Proof to invalidate a will
You cannot complain that a new will is invalid just because you found out about it only much later. It is quite common for new beneficiaries to keep things to themselves rather than to disclose the existence of the new will to everyone in the family.
Similarly, claims that it would be blatantly unfair to be deprived of an inheritance as you had taken care of the deceased will not get you very far.
"The court is not here to inquire into the fairness or equity of the dispositions in the 2012 will," said Justice Tan, in response to the daughter's claim that her father, being a "principled man", could not have disinherited her, as she was his caregiver.
Despite suggesting that her father did not have the capacity to make the new will due to a serious mental illness such as dementia, the daughter did not call any medical professionals to support her claim.
So Justice Tan had to test each allegation based on documents submitted to the court.
For instance, on the "Alzheimer's disease" remark that was written on the father's hospital admission papers, the judge noticed that there was a question mark after it, suggesting that the person who wrote it was probably unsure if the patient suffered from such a condition.
After all, when the father called an ambulance due to a sharp pain in the lower left side of his body, he was not checked for Alzheimer's disease or dementia.
As the final diagnosis of the pain was due to the hernia, Justice Tan said it would be "dangerous and inappropriate" to conclude that the father had suffered from mental illness based on the tentative remark on his hospital papers.
Similarly, the remark that the patient "cannot remember", cannot alone prove that the father was suffering from a mental illness as it is common for patients to forget details of their medical conditions when asked by their doctors.
Day-to-day behaviour
If a person holds a surprise birthday party for an elderly person who is dazed or confused by the sight of so many people, the person cannot then conclude that he or she is suffering from a mental illness.
This was the gist of the surprise 90th birthday celebration that the daughter planned for her father at a clubhouse, instead of the usual family affair at home.
Not surprisingly, the birthday boy was so overwhelmed by the festivities that he had difficulty recognising some of the guests and even believed he was attending a "government award ceremony" in his honour.
Justice Tan noted that the confusion the elderly man displayed at the party could not be used to infer that he was suffering a mental incapacity, saying: "Rather, his confusion was natural and to be expected as he was not told about the event beforehand in order for it to be a surprise birthday party."
Moreover, the judge noted that apart from going to his daughter's home frequently for dinner, the man was living alone at 90. He also took care of his own personal affairs, such as paying utility bills and making bank transactions.
Risk of writing wills without lawyers
It is prudent to engage lawyers to write your will so that you will not end up in a legal minefield that could cost your beneficiaries dearly.
More importantly, if the will is done in the presence of two lawyers, both can be impartial witnesses to refute any claims that there was trickery involved during the signing.
In this case, the son had arranged for the will to be signed in the presence of two family friends but the lawyer who advised him was not present.
Although the new will was signed properly, the judge found that the "circumstances might appear suspicious", giving the daughter a reasonable cause to challenge its validity.
Normally, when a party loses a case, he or she must bear the winner's legal costs. But in this case, Justice Tan found that it was not unreasonable for the daughter to challenge the new will and inquire whether her then 90-year-old father had the mental capacity to sign it.
So the judge said it would be fair for both sides to bear their own costs even though the daughter lost her case.
Although family matters are the hardest to deal with, it may be prudent for parents to be transparent about their legacy plans to avoid the bitter fights that may ensue when they are no longer around to maintain the peace.
