Hairdresser handed £390,000 in eccentric customer's will is told by judge to give the money back

Daily Mail ^ | 13th August 2010 | Claire Ellicott

[a fool in paradise]

...Eccentric siblings Ethel Willson and Mabel Cook, described as like 'peas in a pod', drew up a joint will in 1991 leaving their possessions to their family and friends.

Mrs Cook died aged 83 in 1995, but in 2006 her younger sister dramatically changed the will, just two months before her own death aged 92, leaving all but £10,000 of the estate to their hairdresser Jill Fraser. Now a High Court judge has ruled that because the sisters had a mutual agreement before Mrs Cook died, the original will should be honoured.

The mutual wills drawn up in 1991 carved up the childless sisters' wealth between 15 of their closest family, godchildren and friends, not including Mrs Fraser...

Under the revised will in September 2006, Mrs Fraser inherited all of the estate, save for a £10,000 legacy bequeathed to Mrs Willson's carer.

...For many years Mrs Fraser, a former neighbour of Mrs Cook's, drove weekly to the sisters' home to shampoo and set their hair for free.

The hairdresser claimed she was entitled to the legacy because she was the only person to visit Mrs Willson in her dying days in hospital.

But the family accused her of failing to inform them that she had been admitted to hospital.

...The ruling means travelling hairdresser Mrs Fraser, 72, will now have to pay back what she can in cash and a charge will be put against her home, which she bought for £362,500 in July last year, using some of the legacy, for the balance.

Referring to the sisters' family and friends, many of whom live in Malvern, Worcestershire, who will now inherit the money as 'very kind, decent people', the judge said that they have no plans to enforce the charge over Mrs Fraser's home while she still lives there...

[a fool in paradise]

The judge was having a bad hair day.

[Mr. Lucky]

Sorry for the hairdresser, but a mutual will is similar to a contract in that a court can order its specific performance. Any amendment or revocation must occur before the death of the first of the mutual tastators.

[Judges Gone Wild]

Did someone check Ted Turner for senility when he gave $1 billion to the UN?

[a fool in paradise]

Her caregiver (a different woman) got $10,000 from the 2006 amended will and is not being made to fork it over.

[passionfruit]

I guess I am a little confused about what a mutual will is. I do know what an A-B trust is. Are they similar?

[BigIsleGal]

Excuse Me...!
I resemble that remark!

/s

[beaversmom]

I say give it to the hairdresser. She was probably the only one that had anything to do with the old girl other than the caretaker.

[a fool in paradise]

The extended family heirs didn’t even know she was in the hospital and blamed the hairdresser for not informing them.

[Mr. Lucky]

It may be that her caregiver would have had a claim in the estate for services rendered during the decedent’s lifetime. $10,000 seems more consistent with the value of a caregiver than $500,000 or so seems with the value of a hair dresser.

[Mr. Lucky]

An A-B trust is device used in the US to take advantage of the federal estate tax exemption in the estate of both the 1st and 2nd spouse to die. (If a husband dies and leaves everything to his wife and at her subsequent death she leaves everything to the children, one of the exemptions can be lost without the A-B trust or some similar arrangement). A mutual wills are executed by two people, each in consideration of the execution of a substantially identical will by the other. Obviously, when the first person dies, he/she can no longer consent to any amendments.

Mutual wills are almost always a really lousy idea.