Harrogate widow’s claim against Ramus estate rejected by judge

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:

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.”