Wannabe soldier wins inheritance row over father's strawberry business

Call of fruity: Wannabe Royal Marine who abandoned his dream to join the forces and instead dedicated his life to his father’s strawberry business wins inheritance row with his brother over the family’s £1.5million estate

• Richard Winter, 57, was promised he would have an equal share in the company 
• But he and his brother were written out of his father’s will after a disagreement
• They have now won a legal battle to have a portion of his father’s £1.5m share

A wannabe Royal Marine who abandoned his dream to join his father’s strawberry business has won an inheritance row with his brother. 

Richard Winter, 57, had wanted to be in the Royal Marines but took up a role in the family company Team Green Growers after his father Albert Winter promised that he and his brothers would split his share of the estate, which is now worth £1.5m.

Richard and his brothers Philip, 56, and Adrian, 55, then dedicated their lives to the helping build the company located near Bridgwater in Somerset.

But after a disagreement about business finances, both Richard and Adrian were written out of their father’s will, while Philip was left with the whole estate. Albert died in 2017 with both disgruntled brothers not even attending his funeral.

Richard and Adrian launched a legal challenge and have now overturned their father’s will after a High Court judge ruled that Albert was compelled to leave his £1.5m share of the business to the three brothers equally.

Richard Winter, 57, who abandoned his dream of being a Royal Marine to join his father’s strawberry business has won an inheritance row with his brother

Richard had wanted to be in the Royal Marines but took up a role in the family company Team Green Growers after his father Albert Winter (pictured) promised that he and his brothers would have an equal share in it

A Team Green Growers greenhouse producing strawberries located near Bridgwater in Somerset

Richard and Adrian told The High Court at Bristol that they had dedicated their lives to the fruit farm to their ‘detriment’ due to his promise that they would get equal shares.

Lawyers for middle brother Philip argued that neither of his brothers had in fact suffered ‘detriment’ since working in the highly successful strawberry business had made them both multimillionaires.

Mr Justice Zacaroli said: ‘It is not possible to put a money value on the unquantifiable detriment of committing an entire working life to a family business, giving up the chance to build an alternative life elsewhere.’

The court heard that Albert and his wife Brenda were married in 1964 and bought the main family farm, Bower Farm, and ran a market garden business together as they raised their family.

In about 1988, Bower Farm was transferred into the joint names of Brenda and Albert, then after their sons joined the business the beneficial interest in the farm was transferred to the farm partnership in which the family members all had one-fifth shares in 2000.

Brenda died in 2001 and Albert and the three sons carried on the business together for over a decade until they fell out so badly that he cut Richard and Adrian out of his will in 2015.

After a series of transactions during his and his wife’s lifetime and the effect of her will, his share of the business is now worth about £1.5m, with his three sons owning the rest. 

Richard and Adrian sued after his death, arguing that it was ‘unconscionable’ for Albert to have not split the £1.5m share equally in his will because all the sons had dedicated their lives to the farm on that basis.

Describing the sons’ childhood sacrifices, the judge said all three had worked on the farm from an early age, but gave different accounts of what it was like.

‘Philip insisted that these were happy times with plenty of time for other activities; Richard and Adrian emphasised the lack of holidays and Albert’s authoritarian approach to parenting,’ he said.

‘I have no doubt that the work was hard and the hours were long, after school, at weekends and in the holidays.’

After they left school, all three took up working in the business full time, ‘devoting their lives to the family business,’ with Richard abandoning plans to join the Marines in favour of working on the farm.

‘I am satisfied that at least part of the motivation for remaining on the farm was Albert’s attitude that if Richard chose the Marines, then he would be cut off from the family, whereas, if he stayed and committed to building the business, he could expect to share in it,’ he added.

The court heard that Albert and his wife Brenda were married in 1964 and bought the main family farm, Bower Farm (pictured)

Their sons joined the Bower Farm business in 2000 after which the beneficial interest in the farm was transferred to the farm partnership in which the family members all had one-fifth shares (Pictured: Bower Farm farmhouse)

Adrian had also abandoned other life plans to dedicate himself to the family business, the judge said.

Relations between Richard and Adrian on one side and their father and middle brother on the other began to deteriorate from around 2013 to 2014, he continued.

‘Philip had grown much closer to Albert following Brenda’s death, partly because Philip had spent time comforting his father, while Richard and Adrian focused more on the business.

‘The business had run into financial difficulties. Richard and Adrian blamed Philip for at least part of the financial difficulties.

‘Philip in turn blames the financial difficulties on the loans taken out to fund the building of Adrian’s and Richard’s houses. He also blames Richard and Adrian for trying to defeat everything he and Albert were doing.

‘As disputes were raised, Albert generally sided with Philip. Albert was upset at his treatment by Richard and Adrian in the years since Brenda had died.

‘He said he intended to leave nothing to Richard or Adrian,’ the judge said, noting a letter written by Albert, in which he said: ‘Philip is my understudy and we are joined at my arm. He has been fantastic to me and every night has called in and was particularly supportive after Brenda died.’

Albert’s health had begun to fail by the time he wrote his will in 2015. He suffered from heart problems and had to have a pacemaker fitted, and saw nothing of Richard and Adrian in his final years.

‘They did not visit him in hospital during his last weeks and did not attend his funeral,’ said the judge.

The business and farms are now in the process of being sold, the judge said, with Richard and Adrian suing Philip as the executor of their father’s estate over his decision to cut them out.

Of Albert’s £1.7m estate, around £1.5m consists of his share of the business, which Richard and Adrian argued should be split three ways between the brothers.

Their barrister Hugh Sims KC said they had sacrificed their whole lives to work in the business and could not be deprived of equal shares due to a falling out with their father in his final years.

The only portion of his estate which Albert was free to leave to whomever he chose was that part outside the business, amounting to around £230,000, the barrister argued.

Philip’s barrister Alex Troup KC however argued that because Richard and Adrian will have already been made millionaires by the business by the time it is sold they suffered no ‘detriment’ and cannot reasonably argue that their father had to stick by his promise and keep them in his will.

Giving his ruling, the judge said: ‘Richard and Adrian referred in evidence to it being a constant refrain from Albert and Brenda over many years that the sons were expected to work hard in the family business because in so doing they were working ‘for their futures.’

‘This refrain was used, in the early years, to justify the sons working long hours for little remuneration. In later years, it was used to justify the decision to reinvest all the profits in the business, rather than paying large salaries or any dividends.

The business and farms (pictured) near Bridgwater in Somerset are now in the process of being sold

‘Philip…accepted that another constant refrain of his parents was that everybody was – and would continue to be – treated equally.

‘Notwithstanding the simple attraction of the proposition that the claimants’ actions in committing their working lives to the family business cannot be described as a detriment in view of the substantial financial benefits they have received by so doing, I think that it is in the end an overly-simplistic analysis.

‘It is not possible to put a money value on the unquantifiable detriment of committing an entire working life to a family business, giving up the chance to build an alternative life elsewhere, and that such commitment is likely to constitute detrimental reliance.

‘I agree that the lifetime commitment by Richard and Adrian to working on the farm is not capable of being quantified.

‘The only alternative career which Richard positively contemplated was in the military.

‘I accept it is likely, had Richard chosen a career in the military, or had Adrian done the sort of other work he did when he temporarily left the family, that they would not have accumulated as much wealth as they have done by working in the family business.

‘It is, however, impossible to know what either of them would have done over the 40 or more years that they have in fact worked in the family business, had they chosen some other path.

‘Would it be unconscionable in all the circumstances for Albert to renege, in 2015, on the assurances I found had been made by him and Brenda over many years? In my judgment, it would.

‘I am satisfied that the assurances made by the parents that each son would ultimately be left with an equal share with the others in the family business was a factor that induced Richard and Adrian to continue working for the family business over such a long period.

‘I consider, in particular, that it remained a factor in the later years, when Richard and Adrian devoted a proportionately greater amount of time to the business than Philip.

‘Had they understood that, in so doing, they were not to receive any part of Albert’s share when he died, I think they would have acted differently.

‘For the above reasons, I find that the assurances given by Albert and Brenda throughout their lives were sufficient to give rise to proprietary estoppel in favour of Richard and Adrian.

‘The estoppel relates to Albert’s (and Brenda’s) interest in the assets and business of the partnership and, from 2004, Albert’s shares in the company, but not to their personal estate. It entitles each of the sons to a beneficial interest in a one-third share of those assets.

‘Accordingly, Albert’s share of the partnership business and assets and his shares in the company are to be divided equally between Richard, Philip and Adrian.’

The result of the ruling is that Philip loses around £1m from his father’s estate, which will be equally split between his two estranged brothers.

Source: Read Full Article