Brother Face’s Jail Over Distribution Of Sibling’s Fortune

Three brothers and a nephew are involved in a bitter family dispute, after it transpired that one of the brothers gave away their deceased sibling’s £400,000 estate to the poor and needy.

Peter Ivory, aged 58, faces jail, after allegedly following his brother Mick’s death bed request to not let the rest of their family “get their hands on his hard-earned money.” This is due to his brother not creating a Will before he died.

Upon his death, Mick Ivory’s estate consisted of the proceeds of his property sale in Surrey, his beloved dog and a collection of rare Osmond Family memorabilia.

When addressing London’s High Court, lawyers revealed that Peter Ivory received the £414,000 fortune, which he admitted. But after taking into account expenses, Peter was left with £367,000, the dog and memorabilia.

Peter told London’s High Court:

“Mick told me to keep it all, and if I couldn’t keep it to give it away.

“His whole plan was to make sure they didn’t get it.”

Peter gave the memorabilia to the Osmond fan club, took charge of his late brother’s dog and withdrew £150,000 in cash which he then travelled as far as Cambridge to distribute to those in need, including strangers and homeless people.

Peter’s wife, Jackie said:

“Peter took out £150,000 in cash and gave the money away over the course of one month, including to homeless people with their dogs in Cambridge.

“There are a lot of homeless people in Cambridge he was literally giving £50 note to. There are three or four homeless people around where we live as well and he gave them a lot.

“He gave some to dog charities as Mick and Pat [Mick’s deceased wife] loved dogs as they had no children.”

She also revealed outside of court, that they helped one of their friends go on holiday and donated money to a school.

This ‘act of kindness’ has been met with anger by Peter’s other siblings – Alan and John – and his nephew Michael, who believe the estate should have been divided equally between them all under normal intestacy laws.

Although Peter’s defence to his warring family is based on the legal concept of ‘donatio mortis causa’ meaning a gift given by a sick person close to death. This meant Mick’s deathbed wishes resulted in there being nothing left in a pot to divide.

Peter wrote a letter to Alan, outlining their brother Mick’s wishes.

He wrote that when Mick was dying he made him promise three things: to care for his beloved dog, Lady, to ensure Pat’s treasured collection of Osmond memorabilia went to a good home, and to make sure Alan did not receive a penny of his fortune.

He told Alan in the letter that Mick “could not bear the thought” of Alan’s wife having access to the money he was leaving.

In the letter, he added: “So instead I have given it to hard-working poor and homeless people, so there is no money left and you must do what you think is morally right like I have done by respecting his wishes.”

Representing Alan, John and Michael is Simon Douglas, who told the Court that Peter had presented no evidence about Mick’s alleged dying wishes.

He went on to say:

“Nor is there any evidence that Peter has complied with his wishes other than his assertion in his witness statement that he has given the money away.

“If he has given it away to homeless and hard-working people, he should be in a position to give specific names of people he gave the money to and provide receipts.

“He has done neither, all we have is a single item stating: ‘I gave the money away’.”

After a brief hearing Judge Teverson adjourned the case. He ordered Peter to give a full account of the money he has distributed. If he fails to do this, he could face a jail sentence, as the Judge issued a penal notice prior to the adjournment.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
X