Elderly parkrunner locked in £600k inheritance battle with stepchildren

An elderly parkrunner is locked in a £600,000 inheritance battle with his stepchildren following the death of his wife.

Michael Morfey, 81, known in the parkrun community as “Marvellous Mike”, was left nothing in his will from wife Karen Morfey when she died in 2021 after they had been together for 18 years.

Ms Morfey, a retired teacher, had instead left her £600,000 house in south London to her two children, Alexander and Emma Davies, in equal shares, granting her husband the right to stay for a year after her death.

Now the widower, who has completed over 300 parkruns, is suing for a £300,000 half-share of the house, plus £25,000 to cover maintenance costs, claiming that the will did not take into account his needs.

Ms Morfey’s children have called him a “trespasser” in their mother’s house and are fighting his claim for “reasonable financial provision” from her estate at Central London County Court.

They also claim he should pay back £144,000 to the estate, which they claim he transferred from cash and investments held by Ms Morfey’s into his own name before she died.

Mr Morfey is a veteran runner who used to compete for Streatham Striders Running Club. He has clocked up over 300 parkruns in his time.

He met his second wife in 2003, with the pair setting up home in her house in Streatham five years later before marrying in December 2009.

Ms Morfey died in April 2021 at the age of 70, nearly four years after she was diagnosed with dementia in March 2017.

In a will penned in 2014, she left her house in Streatham to her son and daughter and minor legacies to her brother Mark Daniels and niece Lucy Whitehouse, leaving her husband nothing.

But claiming reasonable provision from his wife’s estate under the 1975 Inheritance Act, Mr Morfey’s barrister Daniel Soar argued that the pensioner is entitled to “maintain the standard of living he had enjoyed prior to Karen’s death”.

To provide that, he is asking the court to award him a 50 per cent stake in the family house, plus the right to live there, along with £25,000 to cover 10 years’ maintenance on the house.

However, Ms Morfey’s children have accused him of filtering her cash and investments into his name before she died, and of allegedly drawing up a will for their mother that favoured himself.

They claim that Mr Morfey is effectively a “trespasser” in their mother’s old home and are seeking a court order for possession of the house.

A detailed analysis of the couple’s finances between 2016 and 2020 showed that Mr Morfey “contributed nearly £18,000 more than Karen in this period”.

The court heard that, in his witness statement, Mr Morfey claimed both Ms Morfey’s children “lost interest in her” after she changed her will in their favour in 2014.

But their barrister Hazel Hobbs said: “We can see from emails and texts from her daughter that she took an active role in her care, and Alex would attend regularly to take her out to lunch.”

Ms Hobbs went on to claim Mr Morfey had “misappropriated” tens of thousands from his wife’s account – or their joint accounts – while she was alive.

She added that, as Karen became increasingly frail from 2020 onwards, she had no clear understanding of what her husband was doing with her money.

The siblings have “called into question” multiple transactions, totalling £144,044, claiming Ms Morfey either “lacked mental capacity” to approve them or that her husband “procured the transactions by undue influence”.

Mr Morfey’s barrister challenged this claim, arguing that it was based on a misunderstanding of the way the couple managed their accounts.

‘Upset and concerned’

However, Ms Hobbs alleged Mr Morfey’s financial meddling dated back to 2013 when he “seemingly” instructed a financial planning firm to “draw up a will for Karen, leaving her estate to him”.

Ms Morfey was said to be so “upset and concerned” about the terms of this will and a linked trust that she left home for a short period, before drafting what became her final will and testament of August 2014, leaving her home to her children.

“Mr Morfey, subject to determinations from the court, drew up a trust in relation to Karen’s assets for his benefit and drew up a will, again for his benefit, seemingly unbeknownst to Karen,” said Ms Hobbs.

“In an email dated July 20 2014, Karen raised concerns about a will having been drawn up without her being there.

“Further, Karen was so distraught about the trust and the new will, which was contrary to her express wishes, that she stayed with her brother and wrote out a handwritten will to ensure that her wishes were carried out.”

From 2017 onwards, Ms Morfey was “incredibly vulnerable” due to her dementia, said Ms Hobbs, meaning that her husband had a special responsibility to manage her affairs conscientiously.

Ms Hobbs said Mr Morfey already had “significant resources in the form of both capital and liquid assets” in relation to his financial needs claim, and said he owns a £550,000 rental property in nearby Sherwood Avenue, Streatham.

“He is in very good health and still engages in parkruns and other physical activities. His evidence and that of his witnesses is that he has always lived a modest lifestyle,” she told the court.

‘Her daughter rarely phoned’

Mr Morfey, who denies all the allegations, accepted that the children had taken an interest in their mum, but said: “When Karen was diagnosed, it seemed to me they should have realised that they needed to keep in contact a bit more.

“In the years leading up to her diagnosis, her daughter rarely phoned her and Karen would often say she was worried that there was very little contact between her daughter and herself.”

Mr Morfey said PR executive Alexander Davies had made more of an effort to support his mother, but claimed he had to rally both siblings during a pub meeting in 2020 when he told them they needed to “step up” and support their mother.

In his final arguments to the court, Mr Morfey’s barrister pointed out that his client had “cared for Karen very diligently during her illness”.

He had considered funds in both their accounts to be “funds of the marriage”, said Mr Soar, adding: “He was doing what he thought was best for them both.”

The judge reserved his decision on the case until a later date.