Three brothers lose the lawsuit over the decision to hand over their mother’s £ 850,000 estate to their sister
Three brothers who blamed a ‘grumpy’ judge for leaving them empty-handed in a £ 850,000 family feud over their mother’s have lost a lawsuit to change the decision.
Remo, Nino and David Rea claimed that their mother Anna – who died in 2016 at the age of 86 – left them out of her will only because their sister Rita, a former tennis coach, poisoned her spirit against them.
The trio of brothers, all in their 50s, fought for an equal share of the fortune in 2019, but a judge ruled against them, handing everything over to 56-year-old Rita, whom David described as having ‘hit the jackpot ‘. .
But they appealed, blaming the “irritated” and “grumpy” judge – Deputy Master Jonathan Arkush – for not hearing them honestly, insisting that they get a second chance to fight their case.
Today, the High Court in London dismissed their claims, after they were ruled on appeal and transferred the estate to Rita.
The judge, who was sometimes “ impatient ” with the brothers, had in fact tried to help them and was not unfair, said appellate judge Mr. Justice Adam Johnson.
Pictured left: David Rea (foreground) and Nino Rea (background). Right: Remo Rea. Remo, Nino and David Rea claimed their mother Anna had only let them out of her will because their sister Rita, a former tennis coach, poisoned her mind against them.
The court has been informed that a previous will written in 1986 by their mother, who emigrated from Italy to the UK after World War II, split everything equally among her four children, but another will in 2015 cut her sons out almost completely.
They were left with very small legacies, which were completely eaten up by funeral expenses, while their sister inherited her £ 850,000 home in Brenda Road, Tooting, South London.
In the will she stated, “I absolutely give my daughter my property as she has taken care of me all these years. My sons have not taken care of me and my daughter, Rita, has been my sole caretaker for years. ‘
Today, the Supreme Court in London dismissed the brothers’ claims after ruling on appeal and turning the estate over to Rita (pictured).
But the brothers disputed the will, claiming it should be torn up because their sister implanted a false idea in their mother that they had “ abandoned ” her.
As evidence, David Rea told the court that his sister had “hit the jackpot” when she left the house.
However, Rita pointed out that she moved in with her petite mother in 2009 to care for her after suffering a heart attack.
In the first Supreme Court trial, Deputy Master Arkush dismissed the brothers’ case and upheld the 2015 will, which would see Rita inherit her mother’s estate.
Anna had emigrated from Italy to the UK after World War II
But on appeal, their attorney Robin Howard stated that the brothers, who had no attorneys at the time, were “upset” by the intervention of a judge who “had lost patience with them.”
He argued that the trial was “unfair” because of the judge’s attitude, meaning they conducted their case in a “hostile and demoralizing” atmosphere.
The “irritated” judge had hastily chased them and at one point cut off their hearing of a witness, showing “apparent impatience” towards the brothers, despite the fact that they were not skilled attorneys, he said.
“That cannot be described as fair in any way,” he told Justice Johnson.
It’s hard to imagine a lawyer, but certainly an amateur first-time attorney, who doesn’t think he should take on a judge who’s a bit grumpy at this stage.
“It is the haste, the deterring of the person seeking justice, it is the imbalance.”
Today when he passed judgment on the appeal, Mr. Justice Johnson said that Deputy Master Arkush intervened at trial to help the brothers because they were not legally represented.
“When analyzed correctly, I do not see any animus towards the defendants or, more specifically, towards their case,” he said in his ruling.
While the deputy master showed signs of impatience, I don’t think this gave rise to any dishonesty.
The deputy captain was well able to judge the defendants’ case fairly, in part because he himself made considerable efforts to ensure that the case was presented fairly.
I reject the idea that he was trying to suppress appropriate and relevant lines of inquiry, or was hostile in a way that suggests an animosity towards the defendants, or treated the two sides unequally.
“He was faced with a difficult and challenging case and, in my opinion, he worked hard to treat all involved fairly, including the defendants, whom he was particularly concerned about given their status as litigants in person.
“For all these reasons, I think the appeal should be dismissed.”