{"id":4153,"date":"2019-10-12T15:59:00","date_gmt":"2019-10-12T15:59:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/simplylaw.waydevelopers.com\/england-wales\/contentious-estoppel-probate-claim-fail\/"},"modified":"2024-05-25T10:20:55","modified_gmt":"2024-05-25T10:20:55","slug":"contentious-estoppel-probate-claim-fail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/simply.law\/england-wales\/blog\/contentious-estoppel-probate-claim-fail\/","title":{"rendered":"Estoppel Probate Claim Evidence Fail"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n

What is a proprietary estoppel claim?<\/h2>\n

Estoppel is a common law judicial instrument<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Proprietary estoppel relates to the ownership of something or exclusive title to a thing, such as a house or business.<\/p>\n

Background to Blyth v Estate of Charles Caudle [2019]<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s multi-million pound residence and moved in to another property owned by Mr Caudle \u2013 a bungalow in Dorset.<\/p>\n

Ms Blyth\u2019s contention<\/h2>\n

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 \u201cwould always have a roof over her head\u201d 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, \u201cDon’t worry you will have a mil’, darling.\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr Caudle\u2019s Will<\/h2>\n

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 \u00a38.6 million estate and the trustee of an offshore trust of which his only child was the sole beneficiary.<\/p>\n

Although Mr Caudle\u2019s ex-fianc\u00e9e 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\u2019s estate commenced action against her for trespass.<\/p>\n

Making a successful estoppel claim<\/h2>\n

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:<\/p>\n