The Central County Court contentious probate decision in Blyth v Estate of Charles Caudle has shown the importance of having a convincing body of evidence when contesting a Will, particularly if the claim is being brought in estoppel.

What is a proprietary estoppel claim?

Estoppel is a common law judicial instrument by which a court has the power to “estop” a person from reneging on their word. In the case of a contentious probate claim, the claimant typically asserts that they have been promised something by a deceased party and that this promise has not been accounted for in the Will or via the distribution of the estate.

Proprietary estoppel relates to the ownership of something or exclusive title to a thing, such as a house or business.

Background to Blyth v Estate of Charles Caudle [2019]

The testator in this case, Charles Caudle, met the claimant, Lucy Blyth, in 2008, one year after he had been granted a decree absolute ending the marriage to his former wife, Rebecca Muddeman.

Shortly after, Ms Blyth moved in with Mr Caudle, sharing his home in Dorset. The couple then became engaged. However, within three years, the relationship broke down and Ms Blyth moved out of Mr Caudle’s multi-million pound residence and moved in to another property owned by Mr Caudle – a bungalow in Dorset.

Ms Blyth’s contention

Ms Blyth claimed that she had continued to share a meaningful relationship with Mr Caudle up until the point of his death. Furthermore, she claimed that Mr Caudle had ensured her she “would always have a roof over her head” and Ms Blyth took this to mean that he intended for her to remain living in the bungalow. Furthermore, he is alleged to have told her, “Don’t worry you will have a mil’, darling.”

Mr Caudle’s Will

Mr Caudle wrote his last Will and testament in 2014 and died in 2016. His Will named his ex-wife, Mrs Muddeman, as the executor of his £8.6 million estate and the trustee of an offshore trust of which his only child was the sole beneficiary.

Although Mr Caudle’s ex-fiancée was provided for in the Will, Ms Blyth only stood to benefit once a number of gifts and legacies had been paid out. Crucially, she was not gifted the bungalow in which she had resided with her three children. As such, with Ms Blyth continuing to reside in the property, Mr Caudle’s estate commenced action against her for trespass.

Making a successful estoppel claim

In order for her disputed probate claim to prove successful, Ms Blyth needed to prove that Mr Caudle had made a solid promise that she could continue to remain in the bungalow. To demonstrate her estoppel claim to the court she would have needed to do the following:

• Prove that Mr Caudle had gifted her proprietary interest in the bungalow;
• Prove that she relied on this promise;
• Prove that this promise led her to act to her detriment (i.e not make plans to find somewhere else to live).

The judge’s decision

Ms Blyth claimed that Mr Caudle had left a letter of wishes outlining his desire to leave her the bungalow; however, Ms Blyth was unable to produce the letter in court.

Against this background, the District Court judge concluded that Ms Blyth was not in a subsisting relationship with Mr Caudle up until the point of his death. He also found that it was unlikely that an individual as attentive and organised as Mr Caudle would neglect to ensure his wishes were carried out. Ms Blyth was ordered to leave the bungalow and to pay legal costs of around £80,000.

“I accept, and find as a result, that the relationship [Mr Caudle] had with [Ms Blyth] ended many years before his death,” commented the District Court judge.

“There were no significant legacies for [Ms Blyth] and the Will does not leave the bungalow to her. There is no documentary evidence [Mr Caudle] ever intended her to benefit from his estate, save as a residuary beneficiary.”

What we learned

The disputed probate case teaches us that the claimant must have clear supporting evidence when bringing an estoppel claim; had Ms Blyth been able to produce the letter she claimed existed, it is possible the court might have reached a different decision.

Lastly, had Ms Blyth been residing with Mr Caudle up until the time of his death, she may have been able to bring a dependency claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.