In Watts v Watts, a case that has attracted much media attention, the High Court rejected the claim brought by the deceased’s son that his mother had forged her late husband’s signature to secure his entire fortune, with the result that he was excluded from the will. Learn more about how this will forgery claim was resolved.
Background
Eustace Watts passed away in 2008, leaving a will dated 8th February 2000. Under this will, his wife, Jobyna Watts, was appointed as his executrix and the sole beneficiary of his estate, alleged to be worth around £8 million. The will had been executed and witnessed by a solicitor and a legal secretary at a local law firm. Eustace’s son, Carlton Watts, was left out of the will.
A Case of Will Forgery?
Carlton claimed that his mother had forged Eustace’s signature on the will made in 2000 to ensure that his father’s estate was all passed to her. He further contended that this overrode his late father’s wishes that he and his brother Fraser would receive a third of Eustace’s estate each, as set out in an earlier will, made in 1994.
The will included a valid attestation clause; this meant that the courts would assume that the will was signed properly. While the will could still be challenged, the existence of the attestation clause meant that the burden of proof was on Carlton to prove that the will was a forgery. He put forward evidence from a handwriting expert to support his claim that the will made in 2000 was a forgery. This evidence looked for similarities between Jobyna’s signature and the deceased’s signature on the will in dispute.
What Did the Court Find?
The High Court rejected his contention that the ‘pen pressure’ and ‘angle of letter formation’ on Eustace’s signature was markedly similar to Jobyna’s signature. It held that the handwriting expert should have put forward samples of the deceased’s signature and handwriting.
Instead, the court preferred the evidence of Jobyna’s handwriting expert, whose report did refer to both Eustace’s and Jobyna’s handwriting over 65 years. This expert concluded that there were no significant differences between Eustace’s disputed signature on the will in question and the signatures referred to in his evidence.
The crucial evidence, however, came from Eustace’s solicitor who had taken instructions for his last will and had arranged and witnessed its execution in 2000. Eustace had been a long-standing client of the firm and the solicitor clearly remembered him signing the will in her office in 2000 and his instructions that his surviving spouse was to be the sole beneficiary.
As a result, Carlton Watts failed to establish that his mother forged the will and High Court found the will to be genuine and upheld its terms leaving Eustace’s entire estate to his wife.
Our Comments
This case is a reminder of the importance of providing as many examples as possible of the deceased’s handwriting in cases where will forgery is alleged.
If you have reason to suspect that a will has been made fraudulently, please call a member of our experienced Wills team or email us.
Last will and testament image by Nick Youngson CC BY-SA 3.0 Pix4free
