A £70,000 (AUD $106,000) inheritance battle has ensued, pitting an adopted son against his parents’ biological children, who may end up receiving the funds due to a mistake where the parents signed each other’s wills.
At the age of 15, orphan Terry Marley was ‘unofficially adopted’ and spent 30 years living with Alfred and Maureen Rawlings, caring for them in their later years.
Their intention was to reward his loyalty and compassion by bequeathing everything to him and disinheriting their two biological sons.
However, following their deaths, it was revealed that Mr. Rawlings had mistakenly signed his wife’s will while she had signed his, rendering both wills invalid and consequently transferring the inheritance to their biological children.
Now 50, Mr. Marley has initiated a court battle for his inheritance. After losing to the sons in the High Court, he has escalated his case to the Appeal Court.
The reasons behind the couple’s decision to exclude their sons, Terry Rawlings, 49 – a celebrated biographer of rock stars like Ronnie Wood – and his brother Michael, remain unclear.
Yet Mr. Marley’s lawyers have contended that the court should respect the couple’s wishes to designate him as their heir.
From 1975, the Rawlingses resided with Mr. Marley in Biggin Hill, Kent, UK, from when they began to care for him until their passing. Their wills allocated everything to the surviving partner, with Mr. Marley as the sole beneficiary if one spouse passed away.
The signature error, attributed to the solicitor, emerged after Alfred Rawlings’ death in 2006, three years following his wife’s death.
Teresa Peacocke, representing Mr. Marley, informed the Appeal Court that ‘there is no doubt whatsoever’ regarding the couple’s intentions when creating their wills.
She stated, ‘There is no indication of fraud or any doubts or suspicions surrounding the wills’ preparation or execution.’ Miss Peacocke argued that the court should prioritize fulfilling the known wishes of the deceased.
Conversely, Nicholas Le Poidevin QC, representing the natural sons, remarked: ‘The reality is that the late Mr. Rawlings did not properly sign his will, nor did Mrs. Rawlings sign hers, which means he passed away without a valid will.’
He asserted the long-standing formalities required for will execution should be adhered to and told the judges: ‘It is unavoidable that occasional defects in execution will thwart a deceased’s testamentary wishes.’
The absence of a signed will was more significant than merely a ‘clerical error,’ stated the QC, urging the judges to declare that the court has ‘no jurisdiction’ to amend the couple’s oversight.
In delivering a judgment against Mr. Marley in the High Court earlier this year, Mrs. Justice Proudman expressed: ‘As much as I regret the mistake, I cannot fix it.’
The Appeal Court has reserved its judgment for a later date.
