Contested Inheritance: Stepson and stepmother in a legal battle after father secretly changed will before death

A man took his stepmother to the Eastern Cape High Court in Makhanda following a dispute over an agreement regarding the inheritance left by his late father.

The woman only identified as PG, married her late husband in May 1996, and in 2001 they signed a joint will that outlined the distribution of their joint estate. However, after her husband's passing in 2021, she was taken aback to learn that her husband had written a new will without her knowledge and disinherited her.

Distraught and determined to secure her rightful share, she consulted a lawyer and consequently filed a claim against the deceased's estate. Upon receiving the claim, the estate's executor began settlement negotiations between PG and her stepson, MG.

The settlement negotiations took place between the parties both orally and through emails. However, the validity and authenticity of the oral agreement and the emails came under scrutiny in a legal battle instituted by the stepmother against MG in the Humansdorp Regional Court.

In April 2024, the court ruled in favour of the stepmother, igniting the stepson's decision to appeal the judgment at the Eastern Cape High Court.

Evidence presented in the lower court indicates that the parties reached an agreement in March 2022. Under this agreement, the stepmother agreed not to contest the will or lodge a claim against the estate, in exchange for a lump sum payment of R220,000 from the stepson.

Furthermore, she required him to pay her R5,700 monthly for five years, subject to an annual increase of 5%. Additionally, he had to contribute R1,500 monthly towards her petrol costs and R2,000 monthly for her domestic worker's salary, with both these payments also continuing for five years.

However, the stepson denied that such an agreement was made. He said when the agreement was presented to him it was not in accordance with what was discussed during the negotiations and for that reason, he refused to sign it.

The stepson added that there were still negotiations between the parties and no definite agreement had been concluded. To support his statement, he produced an email where he said, “I also need to discuss a couple of issues regarding the agreement, and I wanted to share some information and to get your input.”

Moreover, he said the evidence presented in the lower court makes it abundantly clear that the agreement between the parties required a written and signed document to be deemed valid.

He said the validity and effectiveness of the agreement stemmed from PG signing it, where one of the clauses states that it will be effective on the date of both signatures.

He further added that PG's signature indicated her awareness that the agreement would only be finalised upon signing. Given her previous employment at the bank and familiarity with contract mechanics, he said it was implausible that she misunderstood the clause's meaning or the significance of her signature.

Acting judge Thembelani Attwell Nkele presided over the matter and noted that from the evidence presented, it's clear that for the agreement to be valid and enforceable it had to be reduced into writing and signed by both parties.

"This is apparent from the emails as well as from the fact that the agreement that the respondent (PG) relies on contains a clause that makes it very clear that for it to be valid and enforceable it had to be in writing and signed by the parties," said the judge.

Judge Nkele noted that PG had failed to provide credible evidence to challenge the requirement for the agreement to be in writing and signed by the parties. This failure was significant because, in the lower court, the evidence indicated that a written and signed agreement was a necessary condition for its validity.

"From the record of evidence presented at the lower court it is clear that the parties agreed to enter into an agreement in the future, which was to be reduced into writing and signed by both of them, for it to be valid. What they had in mind is an agreement to negotiate an agreement which never came into existence," said the judge.

Consequently, judge Nkele found that the lower court erred in its ruling and ruled in favour of the stepson.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.