A judge has warned three brothers that they risk blowing their entire inheritance on lawyers’ fees as the trio launch a fourth court battle against their sister over their late mother’s £850,000 estate.
Remo, Nino and David Rea, all in their 50s, have been fighting with their former tennis coach sister Rita Rea, 57, after their mother Anita left almost everything to her only daughter upon her death in 2016.
The brothers allege they had only been cut out of their 86-year-old mother’s will because Rita had poisoned her mind against them, making her wrongly think they didn’t care for her and had ‘abandoned’ her.
Twice, they have lost battles over the will in the High Court, but this week won a third fight at the Court of Appeal – meaning the case is now set to go before a fourth court.
However, allowing their appeal, Lord Justice Lewison said the siblings risked blowing their inheritance if they allow the court feud to go on any longer.
He said: ‘The outcome is a tragedy for the whole family. The tangible benefits deriving from the relatively modest estate will have been seriously depleted by the costs of the original trial and the appeal.
Pictured left: David Rea (foreground) and Nino Rea (background). Right: Remo Rea
‘A further trial may well exhaust them completely.’
During the first trial of the family battle in 2019, the High Court heard that a previous will, written in 1986 by their mother, split everything equally between her four children, but that another in 2015 cut her sons out almost entirely.
The three brothers were only left with very small legacies eaten up by funeral expenses, while their sister inherited her £850,000 home in Tooting, south London.
In the will, Anita, who had emigrated to the UK from Italy following the Second World War, had declared: ‘I give my daughter my property absolutely as she has taken care of me for all these years.
Their mother had emigrated to the UK from Italy following the Second World War
‘My sons have not taken care of me and my daughter, Rita, has been my sole carer for many years.’
Challenging the will, the brothers claimed it should be torn up because Rita had planted a false idea in their mother’s mind that they had “abandoned” her.
In his evidence, David Rea – a motorcycle racing manager who took the lead in questioning Rita in court – said his sister had ‘hit the jackpot’ in being left the house.
But Rita pointed to the fact that she had moved in with her frail mother in 2009 to look after her after she had had a heart attack.
At the end of the initial trial, Master Jonathan Arkush rejected the brothers’ case and upheld the 2015 will, leaving Rita to inherit her mother’s estate.
But the case then went back to the High Court, with the brothers’ barrister Robin Howard arguing that the decision should be overturned due to the way it was handled by the judge.
He claimed the brothers, questioning Rita themselves as they had no lawyers at the time, had been ‘put off their stroke’ by interventions of Master Arkush, who had ‘lost patience’ with them, leaving them to think they were up against a ‘grumpy’ judge.
That challenge ended in defeat for the brothers in January last year, but they went back to court again last month and appealed directly to the Court of Appeal, where three judges this week ruled in their favour.
Lord Justice Snowden said the case would have to be remitted back to the High Court for yet another face-off, which would only lead to ‘emotional stress’ for the family and the depletion of what is left of the estate.
The brothers allege they had only been cut out of their 86-year-old mother’s will because Rita (pictured) had poisoned her mind against them
‘Without making any observations whatever on the merits, that is a most unfortunate result,’ he said.
‘I would, therefore, strongly urge the parties to these proceedings to do everything possible to reach a consensual settlement of their differences rather than fight out a retrial.’
In their appeal, lawyers for the brothers had argued before Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Snowden and Lord Justice Newey that they had not received a fair trial.
Master Arkush had prevented them from cross-examining their sister on crucial parts of the case in the genuine mistaken belief that they had already done so, the court heard.
Allowing the appeal, Lord Justice Snowden said that, in preventing cross-examination on those aspects of the case, the judge had ‘caused serious prejudice’ to the brothers and meant their trial was ‘unfair’.
The case will now go back to the High Court for a fresh trial unless the siblings are able to settle their differences privately.
