Family of 92-year-old who ripped up will on deathbed argue she was too weak to tear paper

Carry Keats ripped three-quarters of the way through the pages of her will during her final illness in hospital, sparking a family drama that put five cousins against her sister

Five cousins disinherited when a 92-year-old dramatically ripped up her £800,000 will on her deathbed are facing a £200,000-plus bill after losing their court fight.

But lawyers for the five vowed to keep on fighting the case, after telling the judge who made the ruling cutting them out that he "got it completely wrong". Carry Keats physically ripped three-quarters of the way through the pages of her will during her final illness in hospital, creating a family drama pitting her five distant cousins against her younger sister - with whom she had a "love-hate relationship".

Under a Victorian law passed in 1837, any person can legally revoke a will they have made by ripping it up, so long as the act is carried out within certain guidelines. If Mrs Keats died without a valid will, her younger sister Josephine Oakley stood to inherit everything she owned.

But Mrs Keats' cousins - who would have split most of her fortune under the will - brought a unique court challenge, claiming the dying pensioner did not validly revoke it because she was too weak to rip the document all the way through with her own hands. However, Mrs Oakley insisted her sister knew what she was doing.

Deputy Master John Linwood ruled in favour of Mrs Oakley in the landmark case, finding that Carry had wished to disinherit the cousins and did so lawfully. Now he has handed the estimated £200,000 bill for fighting the case to the cousins and refused them permission to appeal his decision, despite their lawyers telling him that he "got it all completely wrong".

London's High Court heard during the trial of the case that Mrs Keats died, aged 92, on 15 February 2022, less than three weeks after tearing up her last will as she lay dying in hospital in Salisbury. Mrs Keats, who owned and ran a successful caravan site, left behind an £800,000 fortune, mainly tied up in her home and land at "Carron" in the Wiltshire village of Nomansland.

Eighteen months earlier, she had made a will which split almost everything she owned between her five distant cousins, spearheaded in the court fight by David Crew. However, towards the end of her life, she grew closer to her younger sister Josephine - nine years her junior.

The court heard Josephine Oakley say that she took her sister roast dinners every Sunday whilst she was still at home during her last years and visited her in hospital almost every day during her final illness. During the same period Mrs Keats - who was described in the judgment as "stubborn" with old-fashioned views, a "feisty old bird" and a "self sufficient, resilient and proud New Forester" - fell out with David Crew and his sister Angela "after they indicated that they were going to put her in a nursing home if she had another fall," Mrs Oakley's lawyers told the judge.

These changes in the family dynamics led to a dramatic scene in January 2022, involving the ailing Mrs Keats sending for her long time lawyer Hafwen Webb as she lay in her deathbed in Salisbury Hospital and tearing her will in front of her. Ms Webb was called upon to complete the tearing of the will as Mrs Keats was too weak to manage herself, leading the cousins to challenge the validity of its destruction.

But ruling against them, the judge said: "In my judgment there was actual tearing combined with intent. Carry did sufficiently destroy the will as it was entirely torn in half as she intended. I find there was a positive communication and not mere acquiescence, as Carry looked at Mrs Webb and responded to her direct offer with a physical command or instruction reflecting her wish that Mrs Webb should actively assist her to complete the tearing in half of the will."

Turning to Mrs Keats' motivation for her dramatic change of mind, the judge referenced the "fatal" falling out with her cousins over the care home proposal and, quoting a judge's comments from an 1821 will dispute, added: "It is one of the painful consequences of extreme old age that it ceases to excite interest and is apt to be left solitary and neglected. The control which the law gives to a man to dispose of his property is one of the most efficient means which he has in protracted life to command the attentions due to his infirmities."

He added: "Nothing in human nature has changed over the last 200 years since that was said, nor I presume will it in the future." In anptyer hearing, he has now ordered the cousins to pay Ms Oakley's costs of the case along with their own bill, estimated at a total of £200,000-plus by lawyers outside court. The judge ordered the cousins to make an up-front payment on account of £90,000, giving them six weeks to raise the cash.

Simon Sinnatt, for the cousins, also asked the judge to grant them permission to appeal against his own ruling, telling him: "I always find it a huge embarrassment to turn round to a judge at the end of the hearing and say you've got it all completely wrong." But refusing permission to appeal, the judge told him: "I've been through the grounds of appeal and overall I consider the decisions I made were correct on the facts as I found them."