Pensioner siblings on brink of homelessness over 600k inheritance feud with sister

A 75-year-old pensioner and his sister say they are facing homelessness after a judge ruled they have no right to remain in their late mother's home. David Isaacs and his younger sibling Ruth have been living at the four-bedroom Croydon property since the death of their mother, Sybil, who passed away in 2013. But the High Court has now ruled they cannot stay there indefinitely, as it would unfairly deprive their sister, Susan Ellis-Cohn, of her inheritance.

The dispute started with the mother's will. In 2008, during David's divorce, she removed him from the will amid concerns his ex-wife might claim part of the inheritance. Although David later returned to care for his mother in her final years, she died in April 2013, aged 89, without rewriting her will to include him. After years of wrangling, David brought a claim under the 1975 Inheritance Act for "reasonable financial provision" from the £600,000 estate. Last year, a judge awarded him £150,000 - 25% of the estate - with the rest split between the two sisters, Susan and Ruth.

However, an independent administrator is now overseeing the sale of the house on Susan's behalf. David and Ruth were granted a six-month postponement to explore buying the property, but were unable to secure finance or rental accommodation.

Representing themselves in court last week, they asked Judge David Rees KC to allow them to remain in the house. David told him: "You are making us homeless.. Do you want us to be homeless - two old people?"

Ruth added: "You are doing wrong. When you go home, you will reconsider the wrong you have done."

But the judge refused, saying their application amounted to a request to live in the house "indefinitely", which he could not permit. "They have had some six months now and are really no further forward in demonstrating that there's any realistic likelihood they're going to be able to purchase this property from the estate," he said.

He continued: "My jurisdiction (last year) was simply in relation to considering what was reasonable financial provision out of the estate.

"I made that decision. Mr Isaacs is entitled to 25% of the estate and the balance is to be split between his two sisters.

"I didn't make any finding that Mr Isaacs should have the right to occupy the property for life.

"Susan has been kept out of any interest in the estate for a period of years and she has a legitimate interest in receiving her share of the estate."

*** Ensure our latest news headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings. ***

An earlier ruling acknowledged David owns no property and has "no entitlement" to remain, even though this could leave him in council emergency accommodation described as "far from ideal".

During the earlier trial, Susan, giving evidence from a California nursing home, claimed her mother had cut David out because she "disliked" him. But the judge rejected that account, saying: "I do not accept Susan's evidence that the deceased had always disliked David."

He added that Sybil had appeared grateful for the care David and Ruth provided and that by 2011 their relationship was friendly. The court also heard David suffers from osteoporosis, arthritis and an ankle deformity, and has been financially dependent on his mother, and later the estate, for accommodation since 2011.

David and Ruth are due back in court in April as they seek to appeal the possession order.