Sheriff reduces homemade will after finding deceased’s daughter obtained it by dementia-induced facility and circumvention

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] SC GLA 57
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Anthony Deutsch

Allan Scott raised an action for production and reduction of the will against Lorna Reeves, the purported executrix nominate of the late Ruby Scott, and other family members, contending that the deceased’s second will was procured through facility and circumvention and/or undue influence. He argued that the second will, while dated to April 2019, had in fact been created by the first defender in 2020 to allow her to solely inherit the deceased’s home instead of a three-way split provided for in the original will including himself and another sister, Jacqueline Robertson.

The case was heard by Sheriff Anthony Deutsch, with MacLeod, advocate, appearing for the pursuer and Heaney, advocate, for the defenders.

Disengaged without falling out

In 2018, the deceased Mrs Scott was diagnosed with vascular dementia. Her original will, prepared by solicitors and dated 14 October 2011, provided that in the event that her husband did not survive her, her executor was to make over her residential property in Glasgow equally to the pursuer, the first defender, and Jacqueline Robertson.

On 21 February 2019, the deceased subscribed a power of attorney document conferring welfare and continuing powers in favour of the first defender. A second will was later produced dated 25 April 2019. This will consisted of a two-page DIY document published by GLSS Ltd, t/a DIY Legal Forms, completed in the handwriting of the first defender. However, the blank pro forma was found to have been first published in November 2019.

The pursuer in his evidence explained that the first defender became the deceased’s principal carer and manager of her finances after a dispute between her and Jacqueline Robertson. He explained that his side of the family had become disengaged from the deceased without there having been a failing out and described attending his mother’s house in 2019 for her 75th birthday only to find the first defender had organised a party and not invited him or Mrs Robertson.

Evidence was also given by Linda Gettie, convened as the third defender, who did not stand to benefit under either will and described being cast in the role of black sheep of the family. She stated that she had visited her mother in early 2018 to question her about how she had been treated but abandoned her original intentions after realising how far her condition had progressed.

In her evidence, the first defender, who was employed as a carer, said that she had wrongly dated the second will to April 2019 by mistake due to ongoing discussing about Covid-19 at the time, and that the will was actually signed on 25 April 2020. When pressed in cross examination, she instead offered the explanation that she was “hopeless at writing dates”.

Deliberate misdating

In his decision, Sheriff Deutsch stated that he found the pursuer’s evidence to be credible and reliable, and said of Mrs Gettie’s evidence: “There was in Mrs Gettie’s account evidence which tended to show that the first defender exerted pressure and influence on her mother in ways directed against her other siblings. Most egregiously that she threatened to leave off caring for her mother and stated that the consequence of this would be that the deceased would be ‘flung’ into hospital by the pursuer and Jacqueline. More subtly the first defender saw to it that celebration cards were no longer sent and that, after a redecoration, the only photographs displayed in the deceased’s home were those of the first defender’s own family.”

He added: “It was clear from Mrs Gettie’s evidence that it was the first defender who saw to it that neither the pursuer nor Jacqueline be invited to their mother’s 75th birthday celebration and that she was responsible for the pursuer being made to feel uncomfortable when he attended on that occasion. According to this witness the first defender articulated the view that the pursuer and Jacqueline were just after their mother’s money and that they were not interested in her care. Such a perspective might be thought likely to underpin any decision to procure that the terms of the original will be varied.”

Sheriff Deutsch criticised the explanation offered for the erroneous date of the second will, saying: “It is a very common experience in the first few weeks of a new year to find oneself dating documents with the year just passed. By April, when coming to provide a date, insertion of the correct year will for most people have become automatic. That the first defender simply made a mistake when she wrongly dated her mother’s will is improbable. The explanation which she offered in examination in chief that the mistake happened because at the time there was so much talk about ‘Covid 19’ did not ring true. Still less convincing was the explanation which she offered in cross-examination.”

He concluded on facility and circumvention: “The manner in which the document was created, without benefit of legal advice and through the use of a pro forma completed in manuscript by the first defender herself, supports that inference. So also does the evidence concerning the position of dominance held by first defender over the deceased both in relation to her finances and her physical and medical care. The evidence of Mrs Gettie tending to show a capacity for abuse of that position of dominance is also telling. What I have found to be the deliberate misdating of the second will, making it appear contemporaneous with the certificate given by the deceased’s consultant psychiatrist, clearly points to an understanding on the part of the first defender that something irregular had taken place when her mother signed that later will.”

The sheriff accordingly ordered production and reduction of the deceased’s second will dated 25 April 2019 and appointed a further hearing to consider the question of who would now act as Mrs Scott’s executor.