A beautician and a dentist A heritage battle at the fate of £ 1.8 meters of a dead accountant is locked in a fight when she married both of them Las vegas Five years different – but failed to get one Divorce From his first bride.
In October 2020, rich accountant James Dinsdale died at the age of 55, which was being fought by two women who had called themselves their wives except for £ 1.8 million.
After her death, her most recent partner, beautician Margaret Dinsdale, 41, began to pruning her matters on the notion that she would inherit her fate as her next family.
But when she came to know that James still legally married her first wife, she was released when she closed her for Las Vegas’s wedding in 2017 – her marriage “zero” and did not inherit her.
Five years ago, James married a 53 -year -old cosmetic dentist, Victoria Faval, on the same road in a Vagas Wedding Chapel and only 600 meters away from where he married Margaret, but never scored a goal to divorce him – with his adult son with his adult son – with his adult son – with his adult son.
However, both women have now been closed in one High court After Margaret, Clash claimed a part of James’ money, based on this, he should be considered as “spouse” as he married her in “Good Faith”.
In a short initial hearing, the High Court Judge Master James Brightwell heard and heard World War II History expert James Dinsdale created a prosperous property development business located around Central London, before he died and left a property and now a price of about £ 1.8m.
He in 2012 Dr.
Margaret barrister Jonathan Davi Casey said his customer and James met in 2008 and became friends, before starting the “romantic relationship” in 2014, set up a house together the following year.
However, she had no idea that she was still married, only after her death.
And because he did not make a will, James’ money. Fowellow and his son, William Dinsdale, will be divided under intestinal rules between 28,.
He said, “Margaret believed that she was legitimately married to James Dinsdale and there was no evidence that she knew that the deceased was married to Dr. Fawl in 2017,” she said.
“She used to understand the marriage between the deceased and Dr. Fawl that some time before the relationship between the deceased and the contenders was over.
“We have no idea what James had a state of mind, maybe he did not realize that he had no divorce.
“Margaret claims that she believed that the deceased should be unmarried and already divorced when she married her in good faith.”
Touching his 2017 wedding in Las Vegas, he said: “The ceremony that took place between James and my customer took place almost the same place, and seems to have the same nature as the first ceremony, which took place between the deceased and Victoria foul in June 2012.
“The wedding ceremony between him and Dr. Fowell took place in Little White Wedding Chapel, Las Vegas Bulleward. The wedding ceremony between James and Margaret took place in the Chapel of the Flowers, Las Vegas Bulleward.
“But for the pre -marriage of the deceased for Dr. Fawl, the latter ceremony would be a valid marriage ceremony.”
After claiming for “proper provision” from James’ assets under the Heritage Act of 1975, the matter reached court for preliminary hearing, which under the Inheritance Act, under the Inheritance Act, under the amount of at least half of his £ 1.8M.
This case was given by Dr. Fowel and James’s adult sons are being brought against William, who are currently due to sharing their fate as their next family members under intestinal rules.
Mr. Davi said that Margaret took care of James “24 hours per day” during his final conflicts with terminal cancer and was his “primary career”.
“The proof of his close friends is that James and Margaret had a loving relationship, and he was very grateful for his care,” he told the judge.
He said that the couple were together for six years and planned to have children, Margaret left work and became a housewife, while they provided for them.
“She and James had a relatively grand lifestyle, funded by her wealth and she was completely economically dependent on the deceased,” he said.
“Dr. Fawl and William Dinsdale were not being maintained financially by the deceased at the time of his death.”
Dr. There was no evidence of the “financial requirement” from the Fawl, Mr. Davi claimed that, highlighting Margaret’s claims, that James once told him that he had shifted to his property and had a lump sum of a £ 2 million after his relationship ended.
The court heard that it was alleged that Margaret has already received £ 375,000 “from property or in the amount received from James,” but Mr. Davi said that it has been denied and has received £ 20,000 only from his pension.
After a brief court hearing in which it was told that it was “not disputed” that Margaret should be considered as “spouses” under the 1975 Act, Master Brightwell announced that effect for his claim objectives against the property.
He directed that the future hearing should now focus on how James’ property should be divided between his two wives and sons.
Under the inheritance act, paying to those who treated as a spouse or civil partner is more than unmarried partners of a dead person.
The judge also allocated a cash -stapped Margaret £ 50,000 from the property to help cover his bills and contributed to the bills of heavy lawyers as the matter proceeded – approximately 175,000 pounds with an estimated cost.
