This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities...
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
    • Politics
    • Transport
    • Lifestyle
    • Community
    • Business
    • Crime
    • Environment
    • Health
    • Education
    • Sport
    • Harrogate
    • Ripon
    • Knaresborough
    • Boroughbridge
    • Pateley Bridge
    • Masham
  • What's On
  • Offers
  • Latest Jobs
  • Podcasts

Interested in advertising with us?

Advertise with us

  • News & Features
  • Your Area
  • What's On
  • Offers
  • Latest Jobs
  • Podcasts
  • Politics
  • Transport
  • Lifestyle
  • Community
  • Business
  • Crime
  • Environment
  • Health
  • Education
  • Sport
Advertise with us
Subscribe
  • Home
  • Latest News

We want to hear from you

Tell us your opinions and views on what we cover

Contact us
Connect with us
  • About us
  • Advertise your job
  • Correction and complaints
Download on App StoreDownload on Google Play Store
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Comments Participation T&Cs
Trust In Journalism

Copyright © 2020 The Stray Ferret Ltd, All Rights Reserved

Site by Show + Tell

Subscribe to trusted local news

In a time of both misinformation and too much information, quality journalism is more crucial than ever. By subscribing, you can help us get the story right.

  • Subscription costs less than £1 a week with an annual plan.

Already a subscriber? Log in here.

14

Oct 2022

Last Updated: 14/10/2022
Business
Business

Harrogate widow's claim against Ramus estate rejected by judge

by Vicky Carr

| 14 Oct, 2022
Comment

0

Christopher Ramus was found to have taken his own life aged 72 following the breakdown of his 48-year marriage to Elizabeth Ramus.

leedscrowncourt
Leeds Combined Court

A high court judge has blocked a Harrogate widow's attempt to receive a regular income from the estate of her late husband, a well-known businessman.

Christopher Ramus was found by a coroner to have taken his own life aged 72 following the breakdown of his 48-year marriage to Elizabeth Ramus, and difficulties in other relationships.

The couple were the founders of Ramus Seafood, which operated for many years from Kings Road until the couple sold it and retired. Despite their separation, Mr Ramus's will still made provision for his wife, entitling her to an income from his estate for the rest of her life.

However, the income was at the discretion of the three trustees, including the couple's daughter, Claire Holt, and two family friends. Mr Ramus wrote a letter of wishes in September 2019, stating:


"My current matrimonial circumstances are uncertain. If my wife survives me I still wish that she will have a right to income from the trust fund to the extent that it prevents hardship and enables her to maintain her lifestyle. I would like this to continue for as long as you feel necessary.
"If her own resources are such that she does not require that income then you should consider exercising your powers to remove her right to income in all or part of the Trust Fund.
"I do not wish for my wife to receive capital payments from the Trust Fund in order to protect the fund for future generations."


The letter also made reference to the couple's son, Alistair, saying:


"Whilst Alistair's financial and business circumstances are not settled and do not have a firm footing, I do not wish for Alistair to receive capital payments from the Trust Fund. I would like you to consider making income payments to Alistair to prevent him from living in hardship, but not to fund an extravagant lifestyle.
"In regards to my daughter Claire I would like you to consider exercising your powers to benefit Claire, about whom I do not have the same concerns."


Mrs Ramus took her daughter to the High Court under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, stating she did not want to be at the mercy of Mrs Holt, with whom she had a difficult relationship.


The hearing reflected the challenges between them, such as over the sale of the business premises on Kings Road.

Mrs Ramus and her daughter also disagreed over the home she would buy, with court documents showing Mrs Ramus wanted somewhere with enough space for visitors and a garden for her to enjoy. The documents stated:

"She did not want to live in a small house or flat which her daughter deemed 'suitable for a lady of advanced years who lives on her own' and again Mrs Ramus foresaw difficulties ahead with her daughter as trustee if she believed that her mother had unnecessarily spent money on a home which she considered to be too big."







Read more:



  • 45 former CNG staff in £210,000 tribunal win against Harrogate firm

  • Knaresborough woman who refused to wear face mask unfairly dismissed, tribunal rules






Regular monthly income


Mrs Ramus, 77, had said in order to maintain her lifestyle, she would need a regular monthly income from Mr Ramus's estate, otherwise she would use up her own assets and risk running out of money.


She submitted to the court a list of monthly outgoings which totalled more than £5,000, against income from pensions of £1,800 and other assets including bonds and ISAs.

However, sitting in Leeds, Judge Mark West found Mrs Ramus's own assets of more than £1.6m were significantly more than the value of Mr Ramus's estate, at just under £1.1m. He said:



“Standing back and looking at the matter in the round, this is a case of an applicant who in all likelihood would not have received anything on divorce, and who, even after the purchase of a three-bedroomed house for £750,000, would have financial autonomy and still have net assets not far short of £900,000.
"In addition, her case was that she requires a monthly income to enable her to pay her outgoings without using the capital which would be left after her purchase of a new home.
"For these reasons, and taking into account all of the relevant factors... I am satisfied that the disposition of Mr Ramus’s estate under the terms of his will is such as to make financial provision for Mrs Ramus in the circumstance of the case and that the claim fails."