Browsing: Undue influence

The High Court in Durban has declared John Peters' 2022 will invalid, finding it was signed through undue influence and fraud. The ruling reinstates Peters' uncontested 2020 will, allowing five charities to inherit his estate in equal shares. Judge Chetty found the independent nursing evidence and the charities’ handwriting expert more convincing than the defence’s version of events. Five charities have been reinstated as beneficiaries of the late John Peters' estate after the High Court in Durban ruled that a will signed a week before his death was invalid due to undue influence and fraud. Judge RM Chetty declared the will dated 1 February 2022 null and void, confirming that Peters’ earlier will from 29 September 2020 is his final valid will. The applicants were the Animal Anti-Cruelty League, Highway Hospice Association, South African Guide-Dogs Association for the Blind, KwaZulu-Natal Society for the Blind and the Durban and Coast Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. They successfully challenged the validity of the later will, which revoked all previous testamentary dispositions and bequeathed Peters' entire estate to Leonard Moodley, a Woolworths manager who claimed to have developed a close friendship with Peters after helping him during a robbery in 2017. Long-standing charitable intentions The court heard that Peters and his late wife made a joint will in 2008, leaving the residue of their estates equally to the five charities upon both of their deaths. After his wife's death, Peters signed a fresh will on 29 September 2020 that retained the same beneficiaries. The validity of that will was never disputed. Peters later moved to Tuinsig Centre for the Aged in Durban. After hospital treatment for a heart condition in January 2022, his health declined rapidly. Nursing staff described him as weak, breathless, confused, unable to feed himself, and needing help just to sit upright. He died on 8 February 2022 at the age of 90. It was only after his death that a new will, dated 1 February 2022, surfaced, naming Moodley as the sole beneficiary. Nurses raised concerns about signing A key issue in the trial was the testimony of nursing staff who cared for Peters in his last days. One nurse said she entered Peters’ room on 1 February 2022 and found Moodley kneeling beside him, with papers spread out and repeatedly pointing with a pen to where Peters should sign. According to her, Peters kept shaking his head and saying no while Moodley continued urging him to sign. The nurse asked the visitors to leave so she could attend to Peters, who then vomited and needed to be changed. She immediately reported what she had seen to her supervisor. Judge Chetty noted that the incident report was written before the nursing staff knew about the disputed will, which made their evidence more credible. Other nurses described Peters as being able to communicate only in short responses and struggling with basic daily tasks during the final week of his life. Defence version rejected Moodley said he became close friends with Peters after rescuing him during a robbery in 2017, claiming that Peters came to see him as a son. Linda Louis, a Woolworths employee, testified that Peters gave her instructions for a new will on 23 January 2022. She said she drafted it after searching online for guidance, as she had no experience with wills. The court found this version unlikely. Judge Chetty noted that Peters had always relied on experienced professionals for his earlier wills, making it unlikely he would ask someone with no legal expertise to draft such an important document while seriously ill. The judge also found it unlikely that Peters would suddenly abandon the charitable wishes he and his late wife had shared for years, only days before his death. Handwriting evidence supported the charities The court heard evidence from competing forensic handwriting experts. The charities’ handwriting expert, Mike Irving, found that the signatures on the disputed will were very different from Peters’ true signatures. He pointed out signs of tracing or assisted signing and noted an unusual printed letter "E" that did not appear in Peters’ real signatures. Moodley’s expert, Janie Bester, said the differences were due to fatigue and poor pen control from age and illness. Judge Chetty was not convinced that fatigue could explain the nine noticeably different signatures on the disputed will. He found the charities’ expert’s opinion more persuasive because it matched the independent evidence from the nursing staff and other witnesses. The plaintiffs have met their burden of proof, the judge concluded. He also found that even if Peters had physically signed the document, it did not reflect his real wishes but rather the will of someone else. Court finds undue influence and fraud Judge Chetty said that the combination of the independent nursing evidence, the improbabilities in the defence’s version, and the handwriting analysis proved the will was invalid. He declared the will dated 1 February 2022 completely invalid and of no legal effect. The court also ruled that the will signed on 29 September 2020 remains the last valid will of John Peters. Moodley was ordered to pay the legal costs, including the fees for the charities’ handwriting expert. Conviction.co.za Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.

What's Hot

Polokwane Municipality liable for failing to maintain tree that crushed parked vehicle

Animal charities reinstated as beneficiaries after court invalidates John Peters’ final will

Battle of the pastas ends with Nonnas Pasta barred from using rival’s trademark

Browsing: Undue influence

Animal charities reinstated as beneficiaries after court invalidates John Peters’ final will

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

Irregular levy increases, mismanagement, and legal threats in a sectional title scheme

Polokwane Municipality liable for failing to maintain tree that crushed parked vehicle

Animal charities reinstated as beneficiaries after court invalidates John Peters’ final will

Battle of the pastas ends with Nonnas Pasta barred from using rival’s trademark

Dentist awarded R250 000 after colleague claimed she sold her body for money

Latest posts

Making sectional title rules that work: A practical guide

Protection order among the consequences of trespassing in an ‘Exclusive Use Area’

Between a rock and a foul-smelling place

OUR PICKS

Judge dismisses bid to suspend attorneys over R23 million dispute, citing unfair investigation

Legal Practice Council ordered to disclose records behind English-only admission exams

Labour Court halts UCT consultation process that could defeat pending whistleblower trial

Subscribe to Updates

What's Hot

Browsing: Undue influence