In the case of the Albert Arms and the Dunne / Montgomery family, the trustees of a trust set up by the 1997 Will of Jean Montgomery succeeded in litigation against one of the beneficiaries regarding possession of the trust’s main asset. The case made the legal headlines before a resolution was finally reached between the conflicting beneficiaries, highlighting that “possession is nine-tenths of the law” isn’t always applicable.
Case overview
Mrs Montgomery left a Surrey pub, The Albert Arms, in trust initially to benefit her husband for his lifetime, then to be shared equally among her three children from a previous marriage – Jonathan, Sarah and Peter. Sarah and Peter wanted to sell it, but Jonathan had been living in the property for over three years without paying rent and refused to leave.
The trustees succeeded in obtaining a court order authorising them to go ahead with enforcement action to obtain possession of the Albert Arms from any persons in occupation (including the son Jonathan) and to sell.
What happened next?
The trustees were ultimately successful in gaining possession of the Albert Arms with Jonathon sent packing. TripAdvisor reviews show that the place is doing very well and is now run by Fuller’s with a combination of pub dining and six-bedroom hotel. No doubt the trustees after gaining possession were able to sell the asset and then pay out the share due to Sarah and Peter as well as Jonathan.
Jonathon may have thought that “possession is nine-tenths of the law” and wished to stay on at the property (totally ignoring the Will), but ultimately justice was served and the three children each receive their rightful inheritance. This goes to show that if one child is ignoring the Will and continuing to live in a property then legal challenge can be pursued to bring the rogue child back in line.
If you need advice on an inheritance dispute, please contact Susan Glenholme.
Please see the link to the original article: Beneficiary failed to vacate property left in trust by mother – Debenhams Ottaway Solicitors
The contents of this article are intended for general information purposes only and shall not be deemed to be, or constitute legal advice. We cannot accept responsibility for any loss as a result of acts or omissions taken in respect of this article.
Related insights
Managing disputes and protecting your cash flow
Disputes are an unfortunate but common part of running a business. Late payment, disagreements over contract terms or a breakdown in a trading relationship can be commonplace and can often…
Read moreYour Will should change as your life does – when did you last review yours?
It’s a common misconception not only that Wills are something to think about later in life, but that once written, the job is done. In reality, a Will should evolve…
Read moreGive your life a legal spring clean
Life admin has a habit of slipping to the bottom of the to‑do list, but with Spring on the horizon, it’s the perfect time to refresh your legal affairs and…
Read moreSupreme Court landmark ruling reshapes unfair prejudice shareholder disputes
The Supreme Court has delivered an important judgment in THG plc v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) Ltd, confirming that petitions under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 are not…
Read moreSupreme Court ruling strengthens liquidators’ claims in Mitchell v Al Jaber
The decision of the Supreme Court in Mitchell v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber strengthens liquidators’ ability to pursue equitable compensation against directors for breach of their fiduciary duties….
Read more