A £312,000 inheritance battle was won by the sons of an actor who appeared in the first production of Agatha Christie’s play The Mousetrap after he excluded them from his will.
Peter Bridgmont, a stage and movie actor, excluded his three kids, Richard, Andrew, and Nicholas, and left his live-in caregiver and friend, Frances Zammit, his entire wealth, along with his West London property.
Mr. Bridgmont, who passed away in 2019 at the age of 90, had a part in the 1960s ITV police drama Z-Cars.
He also had a successful career as a theatrical director and vocal instructor.
He collaborated with Richard Attenborough in the acclaimed Agatha Christie television series’ first season before starting a mime company and training Sir Mark Rylance, a renowned actor.
He made the decision to leave his wealth to Ms. Zammit after the passing of his wife Barbara in 2008.
After son Richard, 63, filed a lawsuit against Ms. Zammit with his brothers standing by him as witnesses, alleging they were due a payout, the issue was heard in court.
At Central London County Court, Judge Simon Monty QC decided in their favour, ordering the sale of their parents’ previous residence, where Ms Zammit now resides, in order to provide the brothers a £312,000 settlement.
According to his decision, the brothers were entitled to the cash since they had not yet received the legacy that their mother had planned to leave them when she passed away.
This legacy would have come from her portion of the couple’s house.
According to the decision, Ms. Zammit must leave the property so that it may be sold.
The pair lived in Balham, south London, for the most of their marriage, but they sold their home there in 2003 to move into an apartment on west London’s Ealing High Street.
Mrs. Bridgmont passed away in 2008, and Ms. Zammit, Mr. Bridgmont’s companion and caregiver, moved in with him two years later.
Mr. Bridgmont signed a will in 2015 that left everything to Ms. Zammit and excluded his three kids from his money, the amount of which is “uncertain.” 4 years later, he passed away.
Richard, who served as the estate administrator for his mother, initiated the claim, and his two brothers testified in support of him.
When their mother passed away, the brothers got nothing, and they believed there was nothing to pass on, the court heard.
The boys realised they had been due a settlement after documents of her own will became public since she had owned a portion of their parents’ apartment.
She had given her boys a compensation equal to the current inheritance tax exemption in it.
“I was naturally hoping that this may result in a better conclusion in terms of the inheritance, since previous to viewing the will I had thought all of the family money was in Dad’s estate and that Frances would receive in the manner Dad had laid up,” son Andrew, 62, said in court.
“Mom’s will’s delivery was a huge shift.”
It appeared to me that there was a chance for a financially equitable settlement as well as a sense that Mum had intervened to make things right.
This appeared to be a good development since, in my opinion, “Her voice was not always properly heard.”
When the brothers’ late father granted them £120,000 apiece after their mother passed away, Ms. Zammit disputed their claim, claiming that the brothers had already got what they were entitled to.
She said the purpose of the funds was to make up for Mrs. Bridgmont’s lack of charitable contributions before to her death.
Judge Monty, however, decided that the brothers were qualified for compensation.
He said, “I have little doubt that Richard was correct when he indicated that he was not pleased when Peter drafted a new will giving everything to Ms Zammit.”
According to the testimony from all three boys, “I got the idea that they felt abandoned by this.”
The payments made to the boys by their deceased father, he said, led to a misunderstanding of the real legal situation, which was that she had owned half of the apartment when she passed away.
Since the couple were “tenants in common” and not “joint tenants,” Mrs. Bridgmont’s portion of the apartment did not immediately transfer to her husband upon her death.
Instead, her portion of the apartment was still part of her estate, which meant she had a sizable asset to use to pay for her children’s £312,000 inheritance.
Due to “assumptions and inaccuracies,” her oldest son Richard was designated executor but was unaware that there was anything in his mother’s inheritance.
The boys did not consent to change their mother’s will, according to Judge Monty, when they accepted the £120,000 present from their father.
It is obvious—and I so find—that there was no relationship between the payments of £120,000 and Barbara’s inheritance, and Richard, Andrew, and Nicholas, or any of them, had not agreed to change Barbara’s will.
Richard Bridgmont has a right to the declaration that the payments were gifts and not intended to satisfy Barbara’s estate and that, as a result, he is entitled to the money.
The payments were made by Peter and had nothing to do with Barbara’s will or inheritance, and it is evident from the evidence that there was no alteration of Barbara’s will.
In order to share the proceeds between the brothers and Ms. Zammit, Judge Monty ordered the sale of the apartment. The siblings’ portion will be £312,000 in total.
Similar apartments have recently been listed for sale at about £750,000.