Lynn Lewis(seen outside London Appeal Court) tried to stop the house in Tewkesbury, from being transferred to wealthy 91-year-old Thomas Warner, who had lived there for 19 years
A woman has lost a legal bid to have her late mother’s frail and elderly partner removed from the home they shared for two decades.
Lynn Lewis tried to stop the house in Tewkesbury from being transferred to wealthy 91-year-old Thomas Warner, who had lived there for 19 years with Audrey Blackwell before her death in 2014.
Mrs Lewis went to the Court of Appeal in London in the hope of reversing an earlier ruling which allowed Mr Warner, who has lived in the Gloucestershire village all of his life, to stay in the house and buy it for £385,000.
But, in a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Sir Geoffrey Vos dismissed her case and said the decision to hand the property to Mr Warner, given his age and poor health, was a ‘sensible pragmatic solution’.
The court heard Mr Warner started living with Mrs Blackwell in 1995 and they remained together until her death, with him contributing to the running costs of their home.
Mr Warner, who suffers from a range of health problems, had a ‘friendly’ relationship with Mrs Lewis and her husband before Mrs Blackwell’s death, but this deteriorated as a result of the legal action.
He told a previous hearing he would be ‘very unhappy and stressed’ if he had to move from the house where he had spent the ‘happiest 20 years of his life’.
Mrs Lewis had said she wanted to put the house on the market and was willing to sell to the ‘highest bidder’, including Mr Warner, if he was that person.
Mrs Lewis went to the Court of Appeal in London in the hope of reversing an earlier ruling which allowed Mr Warner, who has lived in the Gloucestershire village all of his life, to stay in the house(pictured) and buy it for £385,000
Describing him as ‘a trespasser’, she said he had no ‘need’ to live in the house paid for by her hard-working parents.
Her lawyers argued at the appeal hearing earlier this month that Mr Warner was not entitled to have the property transferred to him because he was not in need of any financial provision from Mrs Blackwell’s will.
But Sir Geoffrey ruled the transfer was ‘entirely permissible and indeed appropriate’.
Sitting with Lord Justice McCombe and Lady Justice Asplin, he added: ‘No doubt, had Mr Warner been younger and less infirm when the deceased died, he would indeed have been required to move out of the property and buy himself another one, as he could well have afforded to do.
‘But here, the judge plainly thought that requiring him to do so, in all the actual circumstances pertaining at the time of the hearing, should be avoided.’
Even if Mrs Blackwell had made a ‘conscious decision’ to leave him nothing, she may not have been aware of how old and infirm he would be when she died.
‘This is not a matter of what might have been sensible or desirable. It is a matter of Mr Warner’s objectively assessed needs.’ the judge said.
‘The absence of a moral obligation was outweighed by what was required to preserve the status quo for a very old and infirm person.’
The house is at the heart of the village where Mr Blackwell grew up and he lives next door to a doctor who looks out for him
Dismissing Mrs Lewis’s appeal against an earlier ruling, Sir Geoffrey concluded: ‘Mrs Blackwell’s will did not make reasonable financial provision for Mr Warner’s maintenance.’
Although fully in control of his mental faculties, Mr Warner suffers from disabilities and said he was ‘not very happy’ at the prospect of leaving the house.
The house is at the heart of the village where he grew up and he lives next door to a doctor who looks out for him.
The court’s decision means that, if Mr Warner offers Mrs Lewis £385,000 for the property, she will have no choice but to sell it to him.