Self-styled Lord successfully argued that his mother left him £300,000 so he could take care of her parrots in lieu of his brothers.
The 47-year-old Bret McLean, who refers to himself as “Lord of Hastings,” is at odds with the 61-year-old Ian McLean and two other step-siblings who were completely left out of their mother’s will.
The late Ian’s father Reginald’s second wife, Maureen McLean, revised her will in late 2019 to leave all of the couple’s riches to “Lord” Brett.
In their 2017 wills, Reginald and Maureen divided their riches equally to their son Brett, his step-siblings from Reginald’s first marriage, Ian, Sean McClean, and Lorraine Pomeroy, as well as their sister.
After he passed away, Reginald “trusted his wife totally” and thought there was “no chance” she would reject her stepchildren.
After Reginald passed away, however, Maureen revised her will to give everything to her titled son, who calls himself online “chairman, consultant, patron, trustee and president of national, regional and local corporate, charitable and voluntary organisations.”
As the step-siblings moved to compel him to divide the fortune he received four ways, Ian blasted Brett as “pretentious” in court.
In order for Brett to “continue to offer care for her green Amazonian orange flying parrot,” his mother allegedly bequeathed him her home in Seaside Road, St Leonards, East Sussex.
Recorder Graeme Robertson has now declared Brett the winner, saying that although Maureen “may have been ethically required” to keep her stepchildren in the wake of her husband’s death, she was not legally obligated to do so.
According to testimony presented at Central London County Court, Reginald split from his first wife and their three children in the 1960s and later began seeing Maureen.
Their son Brett was born some ten years later.
When Brett’s parents passed away, he was still residing in the family home, which he still calls home today. Brett is not a peer.
The house makes up the majority of the couple’s wealth; lately, comparable properties down the road sold for between £300,000 and £400,000.
The house and the rest of Reginald and Maureen’s joint assets would be divided evenly among the four children, according to their wills, which they drafted in 2017 and gave to each of the step-siblings.
When Reginald passed away, his wife inherited his money, but Maureen rewrote her will just 11 days later to leave everything to Brett.
According to the step-siblings’ attorney, Reginald and Maureen explicitly agreed that neither would renounce or change the contents of the 2017 wills, making them “mutual in nature.”
According to the facts of this case, “it is evident and should be inferred that there was a contractual arrangement, whether express or implied, between Reginald and Maureen to the effect that neither would subsequently amend their will without consulting the other or following the death of the other.”
In his written arguments, Brett explained to the court why his mother had a valid cause to leave everything to him.
“The defendant’s mother left her entire estate to the defendant, her only biological son, so that he can continue to care for her green Amazonian orange-winged parrot and yellow and orange jenday (parakeet) and to continue providing housing for her son.
She did this because she knew the claimants were all property owners and would benefit from her will when the time came, and because the defendant did not have a home or family because he had dedicated his life to caring for other people’s pets
The defendant’s mother bequeathed her whole inheritance to the defendant, who was her only living dependent, so he could live well while continuing to look after her parrot and jenday.
He said, “She would be able to continue supporting and shielding her son after she was gone.”
The judge accepted in her decision that Brett “has been residing at Seaside Road since his mother’s passing, where he looks after his mother’s parrot and jenday.”
Contrary to the claimants, the defendant asserts that he does not have a spouse, a family of his own, or his own real estate.
He claimed that his mother had intended him to stay on Seaside Road so he could look after her parrot and jenday when she passed away.
These, he claims, are the reasons Maureen would not have consented to not changing her will and would have wished to leave the majority of her and Reginald’s estate to him.
The court continued, stating that Brett “ascribed opinions to his mother that, I presume, are in fact his own, such as his declaration that he ‘believed’ his mother wished to provide for him, as someone who does not own his own property, instead of the claimants, who do.”
He took care to present the thought as his own “belief” rather than a recount of what his mother had said.
The lawyer who assisted Reginald and his wife in 2017 in creating their mirror wills, he claimed, “told Reginald that there was no guarantee, even if he and his wife were writing mirror wills, that Maureen would not amend her will and leave the entire estate to Brett.”
He added, “Reginald emphasised that there was no way his wife would do this because he trusted her completely.”
The precise subject of shared wills was not covered.
“Reginald and Maureen both made the 2017 wills based on their mutual trust, and as [the solicitor’s] evidence shown, they did not plan for a scenario where either would want to amend them.
Therefore, in my opinion, there was no enforceable understanding between Maureen and Reginald that they would not modify or cancel the 2017 wills without the other’s approval.
Although she may have had a moral obligation, Maureen was not legally obligated.
The judge stated, “Maureen was thus legally allowed to modify her will and make the 2019 will transferring her fortune to Brett.”