When Margaret Watson was in her mid-70s, she decided the time had to come to put her affairs in order.
As she sat down with her solicitor, she was at pains to stress that she wanted her children and grandchildren to be provided for after her death.
At the time, in 1991, her main asset, a four-bedroom, semi-detached Victorian house in a middle-class suburb on the outskirts of Manchester, was valued at £45,000.
Mrs Watson decided to leave £15,000 to her daughter, Doreen; £5,000 to her two sons; and £10,000 to her grandchildren.
A close friend was to be given £1,000, and the neighbour who had popped round twice a month with his petrol mower to cut her lawn was bequeathed £500.
Once the funeral and legal costs
had been paid, any remaining money would be divided between two animal
charities — the RSPCA and the Manchester & District Home For Lost
Dogs.
Mrs Watson was made of sturdy stuff. It was another 19 years before she died in 2010, at the age of 95, after years of being cared for by her daughter.
But her dearest wish — that her relatives would find the management of her estate a painless affair — would not be fulfilled.
The trouble was that when her last will and testament was read, her two surviving children (her eldest son had died earlier from cancer) discovered that, rather than getting the biggest share of her wealth as she had intended, they were to receive only a fraction of her estate.
By the time she died, Mrs Watson’s home was worth nearly £200,000. This meant the £30,000 she had bequeathed to her family appeared woefully small compared with the £60,000 that each charity was to receive.
So distressing did the ensuing legal case become that Mrs Watson is a pseudonym — her family asked that her name be changed to protect them from further heartache.
‘We were astounded that all the so-called residual amount was to go to the two charities,’ says her daughter Doreen, 72.
‘We had no alternative but to take the matter to law. It was very upsetting.’
You may believe such disputes over money left to charities are the exception, but the reality is sadly very different.
The number of wills being challenged by relatives who feel that charities have been left too much money has trebled over the past few years.
One reason for this is that the wealth of the over-50s — the baby boomers — has soared thanks to rising property prices. Many have failed to update their wills to take into account the increased value of their home, so residual monies left to charities often end up being far bigger than the legacies bequeathed to loved ones.
This can have a devastating
impact on relatives and lead to bitter disputes with charities that hire
expensive legal teams to fight for their slice of a bequest.
Speaking from her home in Clitheroe, Lancashire, Doreen, a retired university food sciences lecturer, says she has learnt a salutary lesson after taking on the two charities named in her mother’s will.
‘When Mum drew up her will in 1991, the charities would have each received just a few thousand pounds,’ she says.
‘But by the time she died, because of
the increase in property value, the charities were due to get the bulk
of the estate. I was stunned.’
She says her mother would never have wanted such huge sums to be given to the charities.
‘I don’t recall Mum making a donation to either charity during her life.’
Doreen instructed solicitors before the charities settled out of court.
She got an extra £20,000, with legal costs paid from the money the charities were due to inherit.
But the total sum of £35,000 that she ended up with was still dwarfed by the £120,000 that the charities shared.
The whole affair has taught her a hard lesson.
‘My will is revised every seven years,’ she says.
‘Bequests are based on percentages rather than set sums of money. So, whatever my house is worth when I die, it will be divided up the way I wanted it.’
Family breakdown is another reason why disputes over money being left to charities have become more numerous.
Elderly people who feel alienated from their relatives as a result of divorce are choosing to snub their families and leave large chunks, or even their entire estate, to animal charities instead.
The sad truth is that, often, the only affection they receive in the autumn of their lives comes from their pets rather than their children or grandchildren.
On occasion, the charities — fearful of negative publicity — will settle out of court and insist that the families sign gagging clauses.
But they will pursue any dispute vigorously (mainly because they believe they are ensuring that the wishes of their benefactors are honoured).
The sums involved are huge, as the accounts of animal charities reveal. In 2011 the seven main animal charities received nearly £170 million in legacies.
Of the RSPCA’s total income of £116 million that year, more than £54 million was bequeathed in wills.
The animal welfare charity Blue Cross made half its £28 million income from money left as bequests.
The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals received £38 million in legacies. The RSPB made £27 million from bequests in 2011, but said it was ‘not at liberty to disclose how many were settled through negotiation as any settlement would include a clause that prohibits disclosure’.
The Donkey Sanctuary in Devon, which made £16 million from wills, refused to reveal how many bequests were contested.
‘Out of respect for the privacy of those who kindly leave donations, we do not share information of this nature,’ said the charity.
In 2011, the charity Cats Protection made £36 million, of which £19 million was from legacies. In the past three years, 15 wills were contested.
Given the size of these figures,
you might expect the charities to humbly accept their share and marvel
at the generosity of Britain’s animal lovers. But increasingly, those
that are left money dispute settlements in the belief that they are
entitled to more.
Few cases better illustrate just how rancorous things can become than the bitter row between the RSPCA and the brother and life-long friends of George Mason, who died in 2007.
George’s brother John, and his friends Norman and Patricia Sharp, were well aware of his love of animals — he had an adored cat, Lucky — and so were not surprised when more than £370,000 of the 75-year-old ship steward’s near £1 million estate was bequeathed to the RSPCA.
The Sharps received around £470,000 as a legacy. Mr Mason’s brother, now 87, got £66,000.
But a year later, the RSPCA contested the will.
‘Most families don’t have the financial resources to take on something as big and powerful as the RSPCA — it was like fighting a big company,’ says Mrs Sharp, from Hampshire.
Speaking on behalf of John, his godson Jonathan Toop says: ‘Everyone thought the will had been sorted, but then the RSPCA asked him to pay back money to them.
'John is in his 80s and didn’t need an aggressive law firm saying he had received money to which he was not entitled.’
The dispute centred on the interpretation of Mr Mason’s will and how much inheritance tax should have been paid by his brother and the Sharps.
As a charity, the RSPCA is
exempt from paying inheritance tax and did not want the size of its
donation eroded by the others spreading their inheritance tax bill
across the entire estate.
At a High Court hearing, the RSPCA was admonished by the judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, who said the charity’s claim that it was entitled to more money was ‘extremely weak’. He went on to criticise the charity for adding to the woes of the grieving beneficiaries.
However, the RSPCA took the case to the Court of Appeal. Three judges found in favour of the charity, saying that it was entitled to more money.
John’s share of the estate was cut from £66,000 to £28,820 and the Sharps’ bequest went down from £470,000 to £271,000. The RSPCA got £650,000 instead of the original £370,000.
Charity officials insisted they were merely trying to ensure that the wishes of the late Mr Mason were honoured.
Bruised by the experience, Mrs Sharp says: ‘The law seems to be geared to favour the wealthy who can afford the best lawyers.’
For its part, the RSPCA said in a statement that it was ‘extremely grateful’ to the late Mr Mason, adding: ‘We had hoped this dispute could be resolved without the need for a day in court.
'Unfortunately, the solicitors for Mr and Mrs Sharp and John Mason refused the RSPCA’s offer to meet.’
There is an important moral in all this: if your granny is planning to bequeath a share of her wealth to her favourite animal charity, make sure she is aware of what can go wrong.
As all the charities I spoke to are very keen to point out, this is not about greed, more about an accurate interpretation of the letter of the law.
The countless bequests to animal charities prove how Britons care deeply about the welfare of animals, but the cost of this generosity can have a devastating effect on family harmony.
As she sat down with her solicitor, she was at pains to stress that she wanted her children and grandchildren to be provided for after her death.
At the time, in 1991, her main asset, a four-bedroom, semi-detached Victorian house in a middle-class suburb on the outskirts of Manchester, was valued at £45,000.
Mrs Watson decided to leave £15,000 to her daughter, Doreen; £5,000 to her two sons; and £10,000 to her grandchildren.
A close friend was to be given £1,000, and the neighbour who had popped round twice a month with his petrol mower to cut her lawn was bequeathed £500.
Donkey sanctuaries are amongst the charities who benefit from people’s wills
Mrs Watson was made of sturdy stuff. It was another 19 years before she died in 2010, at the age of 95, after years of being cared for by her daughter.
But her dearest wish — that her relatives would find the management of her estate a painless affair — would not be fulfilled.
The trouble was that when her last will and testament was read, her two surviving children (her eldest son had died earlier from cancer) discovered that, rather than getting the biggest share of her wealth as she had intended, they were to receive only a fraction of her estate.
By the time she died, Mrs Watson’s home was worth nearly £200,000. This meant the £30,000 she had bequeathed to her family appeared woefully small compared with the £60,000 that each charity was to receive.
So distressing did the ensuing legal case become that Mrs Watson is a pseudonym — her family asked that her name be changed to protect them from further heartache.
‘We were astounded that all the so-called residual amount was to go to the two charities,’ says her daughter Doreen, 72.
‘We had no alternative but to take the matter to law. It was very upsetting.’
You may believe such disputes over money left to charities are the exception, but the reality is sadly very different.
The number of wills being challenged by relatives who feel that charities have been left too much money has trebled over the past few years.
One reason for this is that the wealth of the over-50s — the baby boomers — has soared thanks to rising property prices. Many have failed to update their wills to take into account the increased value of their home, so residual monies left to charities often end up being far bigger than the legacies bequeathed to loved ones.
Of the RSPCA's total income of £116million in 2011, more than £54 million was bequeathed to the charity in wills
Speaking from her home in Clitheroe, Lancashire, Doreen, a retired university food sciences lecturer, says she has learnt a salutary lesson after taking on the two charities named in her mother’s will.
‘When Mum drew up her will in 1991, the charities would have each received just a few thousand pounds,’ she says.
Cats Protection made £19 million from legacies in 2011 and has contested 15 wills in the past three years
She says her mother would never have wanted such huge sums to be given to the charities.
‘I don’t recall Mum making a donation to either charity during her life.’
Doreen instructed solicitors before the charities settled out of court.
She got an extra £20,000, with legal costs paid from the money the charities were due to inherit.
But the total sum of £35,000 that she ended up with was still dwarfed by the £120,000 that the charities shared.
The whole affair has taught her a hard lesson.
‘My will is revised every seven years,’ she says.
‘Bequests are based on percentages rather than set sums of money. So, whatever my house is worth when I die, it will be divided up the way I wanted it.’
Family breakdown is another reason why disputes over money being left to charities have become more numerous.
Elderly people who feel alienated from their relatives as a result of divorce are choosing to snub their families and leave large chunks, or even their entire estate, to animal charities instead.
The sad truth is that, often, the only affection they receive in the autumn of their lives comes from their pets rather than their children or grandchildren.
On occasion, the charities — fearful of negative publicity — will settle out of court and insist that the families sign gagging clauses.
But they will pursue any dispute vigorously (mainly because they believe they are ensuring that the wishes of their benefactors are honoured).
The sums involved are huge, as the accounts of animal charities reveal. In 2011 the seven main animal charities received nearly £170 million in legacies.
Of the RSPCA’s total income of £116 million that year, more than £54 million was bequeathed in wills.
The animal welfare charity Blue Cross made half its £28 million income from money left as bequests.
The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals received £38 million in legacies. The RSPB made £27 million from bequests in 2011, but said it was ‘not at liberty to disclose how many were settled through negotiation as any settlement would include a clause that prohibits disclosure’.
The Donkey Sanctuary in Devon, which made £16 million from wills, refused to reveal how many bequests were contested.
‘Out of respect for the privacy of those who kindly leave donations, we do not share information of this nature,’ said the charity.
In 2011, the charity Cats Protection made £36 million, of which £19 million was from legacies. In the past three years, 15 wills were contested.
The RSPB made £27 million from bequests in 2011, but could not say how many cases were negotiated
Few cases better illustrate just how rancorous things can become than the bitter row between the RSPCA and the brother and life-long friends of George Mason, who died in 2007.
George’s brother John, and his friends Norman and Patricia Sharp, were well aware of his love of animals — he had an adored cat, Lucky — and so were not surprised when more than £370,000 of the 75-year-old ship steward’s near £1 million estate was bequeathed to the RSPCA.
The Sharps received around £470,000 as a legacy. Mr Mason’s brother, now 87, got £66,000.
But a year later, the RSPCA contested the will.
‘Most families don’t have the financial resources to take on something as big and powerful as the RSPCA — it was like fighting a big company,’ says Mrs Sharp, from Hampshire.
Speaking on behalf of John, his godson Jonathan Toop says: ‘Everyone thought the will had been sorted, but then the RSPCA asked him to pay back money to them.
'John is in his 80s and didn’t need an aggressive law firm saying he had received money to which he was not entitled.’
The dispute centred on the interpretation of Mr Mason’s will and how much inheritance tax should have been paid by his brother and the Sharps.
The number of wills challenged by relatives who feel charities have been left too much has trebled in recent years
At a High Court hearing, the RSPCA was admonished by the judge, Mr Justice Peter Smith, who said the charity’s claim that it was entitled to more money was ‘extremely weak’. He went on to criticise the charity for adding to the woes of the grieving beneficiaries.
However, the RSPCA took the case to the Court of Appeal. Three judges found in favour of the charity, saying that it was entitled to more money.
John’s share of the estate was cut from £66,000 to £28,820 and the Sharps’ bequest went down from £470,000 to £271,000. The RSPCA got £650,000 instead of the original £370,000.
Charity officials insisted they were merely trying to ensure that the wishes of the late Mr Mason were honoured.
Bruised by the experience, Mrs Sharp says: ‘The law seems to be geared to favour the wealthy who can afford the best lawyers.’
For its part, the RSPCA said in a statement that it was ‘extremely grateful’ to the late Mr Mason, adding: ‘We had hoped this dispute could be resolved without the need for a day in court.
'Unfortunately, the solicitors for Mr and Mrs Sharp and John Mason refused the RSPCA’s offer to meet.’
There is an important moral in all this: if your granny is planning to bequeath a share of her wealth to her favourite animal charity, make sure she is aware of what can go wrong.
As all the charities I spoke to are very keen to point out, this is not about greed, more about an accurate interpretation of the letter of the law.
The countless bequests to animal charities prove how Britons care deeply about the welfare of animals, but the cost of this generosity can have a devastating effect on family harmony.