The owner of the Sherlock Holmes Museum in London is engaged in a High Court dispute with his younger brother over the £1 million home the latter has occupied for the past quarter-century.
In a decade-long dispute over the income from the 2B Baker Street museum, John Aidiniantz and his siblings have piled up almost £2.5m in legal fees and court rulings.
The family has appeared in court more than a hundred times for the museum, which was the vision of Mr. Aidiniantz, 66, and has attracted travelers from all over the world to experience the “gas-lit world of London’s legendary detective and his Victorian surrounds.”
The court heard that the fight began in 2012 when John’s connection with the rest of his family “collapsed in a welter of negative feelings and cross-accusations.”
Prior disagreements involved who should get the millions of pounds generated by the museum, which opened in 1989, and its gift shop, resulting in the freezing of assets on both sides.
Mr. Aidiniantz and his company Rollerteam Ltd are currently in conflict with brother Stephen over their late mother’s previous £1 million mansion in Battersea, south London.
Mr. Aidiniantz asserts that his brother has no legal right to reside there. Stephen, 59, and Linda, 60, argue that he cannot be evicted from the property since he was guaranteed it as a “home for life” when it was purchased in 1997.
Mr. Aidiniantz is currently the sole director of the company that owns it, Rollerteam Ltd, but other family members have previously been involved in its running.
John, Linda, and Stephen Riley and Jenny Decoteau worked together for years at the renowned museum, but have been at odds for the past decade over money, property, and the care of their deceased mother.
Linda purchased the Parkgate Road property in south London 25 years ago with the intention of providing a home for their late mother, Grace Aidiniantz, and vulnerable younger brother, Stephen.
Since 2012, however, the family has been involved in multiple court issues, disputing about £1.8 million in museum earnings, ownership and occupancy of multiple houses, and the care of their deceased mother.
Judges who have dealt with the feud over the years have described it as “poisonous,” “lamentable,” and “sad,” with “bitterness and contempt” visible between family members.
The court was previously informed that in 2013 the family gathered at Grace and Stephen’s residence in an attempt to reconcile their issues by signing a consent order and declaration of trust. John was appointed sole proprietor of the museum’s firm as a result of the deal.
He assured Linda and her 62-year-old sister Jenny that they would each receive £1 million while the Battersea property was placed in a trust for the benefit of his company, with mother Grace and son Stephen continuing to reside there.
In the most recent development, Rollerteam and Mr. Aidiniantz once again sued Linda and Stephen to court, saying that Stephen had no right to remain in the residence, which should be transferred to Mr. Aidiniantz’s firm with “vacant possession.”
Linda, who would be responsible for the transfer as trustee, does not oppose it in principle, but claims that she cannot evict Stephen because he was told years ago that the property would be his “home for life.”
Stephen informed the court that his brother, Mr. Aidiniantz, and other family members had constantly assured him that he would always have a home on Parkgate Road prior to the dispute.
Stephanie Varron, cross-examining Stephen in the witness box on behalf of Rollerteam and Mr. Aidiniantz, asserted that he had known since the 2013 settlement agreement that he might be required to move out.
She told him that the agreement stipulated that he no longer had the right to reside at Parkgate Road as of April 2013 and that Linda would arrange his future housing.
You could remain as long as your mother lived there, but she was advancing in age.
Stephen responded, ‘There was no arrangement that I would only reside at Parkgate Road till my mother passed away; it would be absurd for me to agree to that. I was not the family’s black sheep. Jenny and Linda had got a million. I did not receive a million dollars because I was informed I would be “ok for life.”
Cheryl Jones, Linda’s attorney, informed the court that, per the terms of the agreement, Mr. Aidiniantz’s company was obligated to reimburse Linda for mortgage payments and other expenses related to the property.
However, she had not received the money owed to her; the only payments she had received were those directed by judges. Given that she is responsible for the mortgage, it is suggested that she would face “financial devastation” if she was forced to sell the house at a low price. Ms. Jones informed the court that Linda would not be fulfilling her role as trustee if she were to evict Stephen since she believes he has the right to remain.
She stated, “It is very evident that Stephen’s position was first in her thoughts.”
She continues to feel that Stephen has the right to reside there. This has been her focal point.
She has attempted to resolve this issue. She is weary. She has never shown resistance to a sale in these processes. She acknowledges this court will decide Stephen’s stance.
There is a very unpleasant undertone of vindictiveness, a want to punish, and a desire to gain an advantage in these procedures.
Stephen’s attorney, Mark Dencer, argued that Mr. Aidiniantz was aware the entire time that Stephen had a right to stay at the home owing to the 2013 trust, which would have required “quite specific language” to renege on the pledge and necessitate Stephen’s eviction.
He stated that what John was acquiring was a goldmine. It would be strange if the agreement stipulated that Linda receives $1 million, Jenny receives $1 million, and Stephen not only receives nothing, but also loses his home.
Before Deputy Master Bowles decides whether Stephen has the right to remain or not, the parties will have one more opportunity to transfer the residence while he remains in it.
The decision regarding Stephen’s right to remain will be determined at a later time.
The protracted legal dispute has resulted in orders for payments from several family members totaling at least £2 million.
A Court of Protection dispute over Grace’s care and funds before her death resulted in legal fees of £270,000, while another case in 2015 resulted in costs orders for over £250,000 on one side of the dispute.
In 2015, Judge Peter Jackson denied the family’s request for anonymity in the Court of Protection, stating that it was in the public’s best interest to know how much they had already spent on their legal battle.