A ‘kind and loving’ auntie is locked in a bitter court fight with the nephew she babysat as a child, claiming he ‘poisoned’ his elderly grandmother’s mind in order to pocket her historic £1m home.

Philippa Wehage says she was ‘like a second mother’ to nephew, Justin Dennis when he was a youngster, but that as an adult he fed a ‘drip drip’ of lies to her mum Molly Brown, leading to her cutting her daughter and other children out of her will and her life completely.

Ms Brown had previously intended to divide her fortune between her five children and her grandson but instead left Mr Dennis everything including the £1m Grade II-listed 16th century watermill in rural Kent where she lived.

The rift between Ms Brown and her children was so deep that they didn’t even know she had died in 2016 until three years later.

Mrs Wehage, 66, is now suing her nephew – who she babysat as a child and acted as a ‘second mother’ – claiming he was the ‘driving force’ behind her mother’s ‘insane’ belief in later life that she had been defrauded by her own children.

She claims 50-year-old Mr Dennis put pressure on Ms Brown to change her will by feeding a ‘drip drip’ of lies into her ear in order to turn her against them.

But in a High Court fight this week, Justin denies the accusations and claims his grandmother, who brought him up, had reason to cut off her kids – because her fraud concerns were ‘justified.’

Judge Richard Farnhill heard that Justin is the son of Philippa’s sister Jane Burt-Brown, but was brought up by granny Molly and her husband Jack.

Philippa’s barrister Faisel Sadiq said Philippa had been ‘kind and loving’ to Justin, babysitting for him regularly and acting effectively as a ‘second mother’ until she moved out aged 18.

Under a will made in 1991, Molly, who was widowed in 1996, had planned to split everything she had equally between her five children and her grandson.

But after becoming convinced that she had been ‘defrauded’ out of a share in the family company by her kids, she tore up her will and wrote a new one in 2012, leaving everything to Justin.

The estate is mostly made up of Molly’s former home, a Grade-II listed former water mill, in Goudhurst, on the River Teise, near Tunbridge Wells, which dates back to around 1516.

The court heard that Molly’s family had run a successful printing business, set up in the 1940s and eventually run by her husband.

His three sons, Philippa’s brothers Leighton, 57, Ashley, 54, and Craig Brown, 71, all worked in the business and for inheritance tax reasons, the shares in it were transferred to them in 1991.

The family agreed at the time that the company would ‘look after’ Molly, who would receive payments as and when the company could afford it.

But Molly later became disgruntled after business declined and her children suggested they would have to stop payments, claiming she had been ripped off in relation to the company by her kids.

Philippa claims it was her nephew’s behaviour which caused the estrangement, as he gradually poisoned Molly’s mind against her kids, not even telling them when she died in 2016.

‘He lived in the same house as the deceased and had done all his adult life,’ said her barrister.

‘If the claimant tried to call by telephone, either the call simply was not picked up or the defendant would refuse to pass the phone to the deceased and would simply shout at the claimant, repeating time and again the allegations about the company and calling her foul names.’

Read Related Also: YK Osiris ‘sorry for violating’ Sukihana’s boundaries as clip sparks outrage

Despite having emigrated to Sweden, Philippa says she had a good relationship with her mum, only for it to deteriorate around 2012, and she did not see her again after that year.

‘The claimant begged repeatedly to be allowed to speak to the deceased – on one occasion in order to tell the deceased that she had become a great-grandmother again – but the defendant refused each and every time.

‘The claimant was devastated that it was not until 2019 that the siblings discovered that the deceased had, in fact, died in 2016,’ he added.

He said Philippa described her nephew’s behaviour as ‘domineering, aggressive, intimidating, controlling, threatening and, on occasion, violent.’

‘This was at all times to be contrasted with that of the deceased, who was elderly and vulnerable through isolation,’ he continued.

Mr Sadiq said that, but for Molly becoming convinced she had been defrauded, she would never have changed her will to cut out her children.

And he claimed that Justin must have ‘poisoned the deceased against the siblings’ as there was ‘no conceivable basis’ on which she could have begun to think she had been defrauded.

‘The claimant asserts that the defendant’s influence over the deceased was such that, given that there was no evidential basis or documentation to support the deceased’s views, it was his words and influence over the deceased that led her to this view,’ he argued.

‘There is no other reasonable explanation.’

Justin had clearly been the ‘driving force’ behind Molly’s ‘insane delusion’ about her children, he said.

‘The defendant clearly poisoned Molly against her children and did not care whether the story he fed her was true or not,’ he told the judge.

‘The court is invited to infer that the 2012 will was the result of the defendant applying pressure on Molly on a ‘drip drip’ basis until she made the 2012 will.

‘It is submitted that the only conclusion that can be reached on these facts is that the 2012 will was made as a result of the undue influence of the deceased.’

But in his defence to the claim, Justin – who is representing himself in the trial – says Molly had ‘full capacity’ to make the will and was not persuaded by him to do so.

‘The deceased was a regular visitor to her GP and it was not until three years after the will was written that he had concerns regarding capacity,’ he says.

He says Philippa and her siblings were not prevented from seeing their mum, nor was his gran prevented from making telephone calls.

In fact, it was Philippa’s decision to move to Sweden that caused her to lose contact with her mum.

‘As noted by the deceased’s GP, the deceased and defendant cared and maintained each other,’ he continues.

‘None of the siblings provided any care for the deceased. It was the defendant who cared for the deceased and supported her when she was ill.’

Denying ‘fraudulent calumny’ or exerting ‘undue influence,’ he blames his aunts and uncles for ‘casting aspersions’ about him in an ‘attempt to poison the mind’ of his gran.

‘The defendant cared for the deceased and saw to her needs, and the siblings made no attempt at any point – prior to 2012 or after – to assist in the care of the deceased,’ he says.

‘There is no evidence to support the deceased was ill or frail at the time of making this will, and this is contrary to the evidence given by the deceased’s GP.

‘It was the deceased who became concerned with the actions of the claimant’s siblings, and the defendant, as always, supported the deceased.’

The High Court trial continues.

Source: | This article originally belongs to Dailymail.co.uk