Will Dispute

Will disputes can become particularly shocking when they involve extreme family divisions, massive fortunes, or bizarre bequests. Below are four notable and complex cases of contentious probate.

Real estate billionaire Leona Helmsley, known as the "Queen of Mean," created a firestorm in 2007 when her will was read.

The Shocking Detail: She left $12 million to her Maltese dog, Trouble, while completely disinheriting two of her four grandchildren.

The Dispute: The disinherited grandchildren and the executors of the estate challenged the massive bequest to the pet.

The Outcome: A judge later reduced the dog's inheritance to $2 million, ruling that Helmsley lacked the mental capacity to bequeath such a large sum to an animal. The disinherited grandchildren were eventually awarded $6 million between them from the estate.

1. Leona Helmsley: The $12 Million Dog

2. Nina Wang: The Forged Will Sandal

Asia's formerly richest woman, Nina Wang, died in 2007, leaving an estate valued at roughly £2.6 billion ($4 billion).

The Shocking Detail: Shortly after her death, her lover and Feng Shui master, Peter (Tony) Chan, produced a will claiming he was the sole beneficiary.

The Dispute: The Chinachem Charitable Foundation, run by Wang’s family, challenged the document's validity.

The Outcome: Following a high-profile trial, the court ruled that the will produced by Chan was a forgery. Chan was subsequently sentenced to 12 years in prison for his attempt to steal the inheritance.

3. J. Seward Johnson: The 42-Year Age Gap Battle

The 1983 death of J. Seward Johnson, director of the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson, led to one of the most expensive and bitter inheritance battles in U.S. history.

He left the bulk of his $400 million estate to his third wife, Barbara Johnson, who was 42 years his junior and formerly his chambermaid.

The Dispute: His six children from previous marriages contested the will, arguing their father had been under "undue influence" and lacked mental capacity.

The Outcome: After a gruelling legal battle, an out-of-court settlement was reached where the children split approximately $40 million, while Barbara kept the remainder.

4. Peter Ustinov: The "Pencil Will" Bankruptcy

Oscar-winning actor Sir Peter Ustinov died in 2004, leaving behind a complex international estate that became a cautionary tale of legal fees.

He had written a will in pencil 36 years before his death, which was eventually ruled invalid under Swiss law because he had remarried since writing it.

The Dispute: Because the will was tossed out, he was treated as having died "intestate" (without a will). His son, Igor, fought a multi-national legal battle for years to prove the existence of trusts that he claimed were meant for the children.

The Outcome: The legal fees eventually swallowed most of the multi-million dollar estate. Igor later claimed he was close to bankruptcy due to the protracted litigation, proving that even "winners" in will disputes can lose everything to legal costs.

Contesting a will, often referred to as "contentious probate," requires proving specific legal grounds to have the document set aside or varied. The two most common grounds—undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity—differ significantly in what must be proven and where the burden of proof lies.

1. Undue Influence (Coercion)

This occurs when a person is pressured or coerced into making or changing a will so that it no longer reflects their true intentions.

The Legal Standard: It is not enough to show that someone was persuaded or gave advice; you must prove that the testator’s free will was completely overpowered.

Common "Red Flags":

Sudden, unexpected changes to a long-standing will shortly before death.

2. Isolation of the testator from other family members or friends by a specific beneficiary.

3. The main beneficiary was heavily involved in arranging or drafting the new will.

Evidence Needed: Since this often happens behind closed doors, courts look at circumstantial evidence like medical records showing vulnerability, witness statements from friends or neighbours, and logs of suspicious communications.

2. Lack of Testamentary Capacity (Mental Ability)

This challenge claims the testator lacked the mental ability to understand what they were doing at the time the will was executed.

The "Banks v Goodfellow" Test: To be considered capable, a person must:

1. Understand they are making a will and its effects.

2. Understand the general extent and value of their property/assets.

3. Appreciate the claims of potential beneficiaries (e.g., who they should normally provide for).

4. Not be suffering from a "disorder of the mind" (like a delusion) that poisons their decisions.

Crucial Note on Dementia: A diagnosis of dementia or Alzheimer's does not automatically mean a person cannot make a will; they only need to be of "sound mind" during a lucid moment at the time of signing.

Lack of Valid Execution: The will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by at least two independent people simultaneously.

Fraud or Forgery: This involves a faked signature, a completely fabricated document, or "fraudulent calumny"—where a beneficiary lies to the testator about another relative to have them disinherited.

Lack of Knowledge and Approval: Even if the testator had capacity and wasn't coerced, they may not have fully understood the specific contents of the will (common if they were illiterate, blind, or the will was overly complex).

3. Other Common Grounds

Even if a will is legally valid, certain people (like spouses, children, or financial dependents) can claim it is "unfair" because it doesn't provide enough for their maintenance under the Inheritance Act 1975.

4. Inheritance Act Claims (Financial Provision)

Would you like to know more about the strict time limits for these claims, or how to use a caveat to stop probate while investigating?

Return to Our Wills Page

Contact Our Specialists