Farmers daughters lose will dispute over £600,000 home

Published: 12:02PM GMT 05 March 2010

Richard Key leaves the High Court in London Photo: PA

Mr Justice Briggs found that George Key did not have the required genius to have the will and did not authorize of the essence that left the farmhouse to his daughters.

The statute equates to that Hall Farm in Mundham, Norfolk, will go to brothers Richard, 67, and John Key, 64, underneath the conditions of an progressing will. They had already been given 100 acres of farmland each by their father when he was alive.

Homeless people in Ohio to opinion in US choosing Facebook can be used to offer authorised papers, manners New Zealand decider New eccentric physique to see in to eradicating cow TB Dating website launched for STI sufferers Taliban fighters chopped fingers off Afghan electorate contend choosing observers

The brothers took authorised movement opposite their sisters, Jane Key, 66, and Mary Boykin, 57, after their father died elderly 90 in 2008 and they found out about the new will.

But Mr Justice Briggs did not accept Richard Key"s allegations that his sisters ""deceitfully conspired"" at the behind of his behind to force his father to shift his will in their favour.

Richard Key pronounced his father had longed for him and his hermit to have the farmhouse as they had worked in the family commercial operation given they were 15.

He had claimed: ""They really doubled the sleeping tablets to hit him out.""

A bottle of blockade kept at the farmhouse for multiform years was ""strangely empty"" when he subsequent visited, he claimed.

Mr Justice Briggs said: ""The abyss of guess and distrust engendered in Richard"s mind and, utterly possibly, the minds of all those on his side of the family dispute.... even went as far as to lead him to indicate that his sisters had plied his father with intoxicating beverage and increasing his sip of sleeping tablets so as to describe him fair to their scheme.

""Regardless either Mr Key"s sip of sleeping tablets was increased... I unhesitatingly reject that allegation.""

But he pronounced the brawl in in in between Mr Key"s young kids had ""transformed the before close attribute in in in between his sons and daughters in to one of mutual suspicion, recrimination and distrust"".

""While this visualisation will, theme to any appeal, finalise the authorised issue as to the effect of the 2006 will, I perform no expectancy that it will heal the underlying wounds, however most I would have wished otherwise,"" he said.

The decider pronounced ""a poignant component of shortcoming for this comfortless state of affairs"" lay with the barrister who drew up the will, Michael Cadge.

Contrary to the clearest superintendence in the authorised profession, Mr Cadge supposed instructions for the 2006 will from an 89-year-old whose mother of 65 years had been passed usually a week but receiving any stairs to prove himself of Mr Key"s genius to have a new will, pronounced the judge.

Mary was cross-examined during the conference about since she had kept the shift in the will tip from her brothers and replied that it was a have a difference in in in between her father and Mr Cadge and usually Jane indispensable to know since she was a beneficiary.

""I do not find that justification at all convincing,"" pronounced Mr Justice Briggs. ""In my visualisation Mary kept the due shift tip from her brothers since she well knew that, if they were to find out, it would equates to an unholy row, as in due march it in the future did.""

The decider pronounced he was confident Mr Key lacked the genius to have a will.

""He was both elderly and, in psychiatric terms, infirm," he said. ""He had only suffered the really new and astonishing loss of his mother after 65 years of marriage, on whom he was unconditionally contingent for his made at home care.""

Mr Justice Briggs ruled the 2006 will shabby that equates to that underneath the conditions of a 2001 will, the brothers will get the farmhouse and the daughters will share a bequest of �15,000.