A daughter who cared for her mother with dementia in her own home has been awarded £127,500 by the High Court after a legal dispute with her brother over payment for the care.
Bern Rogers looked after Sheila Wills for 850 days, while Mrs Wills became increasingly frail and forgetful. The mother-of-nine had insisted she would rather live with her eldest daughter than move into costly care.
Mrs Rogers later sued her brother, Andrew Wills, who was the executor of their mother’s estate, seeking £135,000 for the support she had provided.
The court ruled that she was owed £127,500. The estate said after the judgment, delivered in the summer, that it would appeal.
The dispute followed Mrs Rogers taking £100,000 from her mother’s bank account after her death. She said her mother had agreed that she should be paid for the care, although no specific sum had been settled.
Mrs Rogers was prosecuted for fraud and theft but was found not guilty following a jury trial. She then brought the civil claim against her brother.
Speaking about the case, Mrs Rogers said her mother had become confused and had been seen wandering in the garden after moving into her home.
“She was very insistent and would tell anyone that would listen that she wanted to make sure that I sorted out money for her care, I was to make sure I got paid properly,” she said.
Mrs Rogers said she believed taking £100,000 was a reasonable payment for the care she had provided. She described being reported to the police as a “terrible and devastating betrayal”.
“It has been harrowing and deeply sad for it to go from a normal family relationship to being treated like a scapegoat, five against one,” she said.
The Rogers family said their lives had been “put on hold” during the two-and-a-half years Mrs Wills lived with them, with one person always needing to remain at home to care for her. Towards the end of her life, Mrs Rogers slept on the floor to ensure her mother was safe.
Legal experts say family care claims could increase
Kate Harris, a partner at Birketts LLP, said the High Court decision was “genuinely significant” because family care arrangements had traditionally been regarded as arising from love and affection.
She said the ruling suggested courts could intervene where there was sufficient evidence of an agreement or mutual understanding that care would be paid for.
“Where there is credible evidence that a parent intended that sacrifice to be recognised financially, it would be unjust to assume the care was provided entirely for free simply because it occurred within a family relationship,” she said.
John Gorner, of Slater Heelis Solicitors, said the case could become increasingly important as the UK’s population aged and professional care costs continued to rise.
He said that where an agreement for payment had been made before care began, courts could consider awarding the market rate for looking after someone. He added that Mrs Rogers had cared for her mother at significant personal cost, working around the clock to support her.
Ms Harris said she expected more claims against estates following the judgment. She advised families to record any agreement for substantial care in writing.
“A short, properly drafted agreement during lifetime can prevent years of litigation after death and avoid turning a loved one’s final wishes into a bitter inheritance dispute,” she said.
