SIBLINGS have become embroiled in a bitter dispute over their mum’s £1.1million estate after a “shocking letter poisoned her mind”, a court heard.
Aysel Gencay, 72, is suing her brother Dogan Halil, 74, after claiming he “destroyed” her life by trying to steal their mother’s fortune.
Dervishe Halil passed away aged 94 in 2021 and left behind an eye-watering £1.1million estate in Packington Street, Islington.
She ended up drafting four wills, originally splitting the inheritance between all of her children equally.
However, the final documents left everything to Dogan, sparking the legal battle.
Aysel has accused her brother of selfishly “slicing off” her chunk of the riches for himself.
She told the court she was “completely shocked” before Dervishe’s death when her mum wrote a letter branding her fall out with Dogan “bad and shameful”.
Three years later, her will revealed everything had been left to him.
Aysel, as executor of the estate, launched legal action claiming her brother had poisoned their mother’s mind.
Another brother, Attila, was also removed from the will and received a letter from their mother claiming he was a “liar and a thief”.
A second handwritten note went as far as to say Aysel and Attila had been “deleted” from the will.
The daughter told the court the final version was a result of “undue influence” from Dogan.
In a shocking twist, brother Attila is also a co-defendant with Dogan’s wife and fellow executor Susan.
Attila was ultimately given a one-third share of the estate by Dogan under a deed of variation.
Aysel’s barrister, Peter John, told the judge the will should be ruled invalid for want of knowledge or approval or by reason of undue influence or fraudulent calumny on the part of Dogan Halil.
“The deceased had always indicated that she would deal with her estate on the basis of equality – informed by her cultural and religious background and her consistent approach towards her children throughout their lives,” he said.
“The deceased’s purported last will – the 2018 will – was, therefore, a shock to the claimant as the deceased’s only daughter, completely at odds with these statements, and also inconsistent with the relationship which she enjoyed with the deceased throughout her life.”
Aysel told the hearing she had been “extremely close” to her mother her whole life.
Mr John argued the letter written by Dervishe would have needed “significant assistance” and the language was “startingly similar” to Dogan’s.
The barrister continued: “It is notable that the disputes which Dogan cites as being the reason for the deceased’s unhappiness with the claimant…. were disputes with him – and not the deceased.
“It is the claimant’s case that she had retained a strong and loving relationship with the deceased throughout any period when she had any dispute with Dogan.
“However, it is clear from these emails that Dogan was portraying his dispute with [Aysel] as being a dispute between the deceased and Aysel – thereby influencing the deceased.”
But Dogan Halil’s representation, Toby Bishop, argued Aysel had not visited her mother as much as she’d claimed.
He told the court: “Dogan propounds the 2018 will as their mother’s last true will and seeks a grant in respect of it in solemn form.
“The 2018 will was prepared by a solicitor who had known Mrs Halil for years and read it over to her in Turkish, their shared first language.
“A grave and strong presumption arises which can only be rebutted by the clearest of evidence.
“The 2018 will is very simple. After Mrs Halil executed it, she wrote a letter explaining what she had done.
“The court will keep in mind that a testatrix is not to be deprived of her testamentary wishes lightly and that the policy of the law is to enable people who may be elderly or suffering from illness to make wills.
“When hearing Aysel’s claim, the court may hear echoes of the cautionary judicial observations about disappointed beneficiaries persuading themselves that a will could not have represented the testatrix’s intentions.
“The court is encouraged to be wary of finding a lack of capacity based purely on odd provisions in wills or a slight loss of capacity, for example by reason of early stage dementia, otherwise wills made by elderly testators are vulnerable to attack from disgruntled potential beneficiaries.
“Even moderate to severe dementia does not of itself deprive a person of testamentary capacity.
“Aysel alleges Dogan had sought to manage and control Mrs Halil’s finances from 2008. That is denied, but would not in any event amount to direct or indirect evidence of undue influence.
“She says that given…Aysel’s asserted loving relationship with her mother, the only credible explanation for the [2018 will] is undue influence.
“[This] proposition is a leap which purports to span a vast analytical and evidential void. It is an accusation without any proper basis and should be withdrawn.
“Aysel’s allegations of undue influence and fraudulent calumny have no proper basis, they ought not to have been made and should be withdrawn.”
The hearing continues.
