By . Daily Mail Reporter . PUBLISHED: . 14:36 EST, 7 November 2012 . | . UPDATED: . 04:53 EST, 8 November 2012 . Three siblings quarrelling over their late mother's will are risking spending every penny they were about to inherit in the vicious court battle. Julia Hawes claims that there is no evidence that her mother lacked the mental capacity to change her will and cut her brother, Peter Burgess, out of her £120,000 estate. Mr Burgess and his other sister, Libby Burgess, insist the will is invalid and are fighting Mrs Hawes at the Court of Appeal. United: Siblings Libby and Peter Burgess contests their sister Julia Hawes' appeal against an earlier ruling their their mother was not of sound mind when she excluded Peter from her will . Their mother Daphne Burgess changed her will in the presence of her daughter Julia and a solicitor in January 2007, two years before she died; . Lord Justice Patten presiding the case commented on the huge legal costs already run up in the dispute, saying: ‘There is going to be nothing left in this estate. ‘One of the sadnesses about this case is that Libby - who was a beneficiary in both wills and was in most need of her mother’s bounty - gets nothing. I mean, it is just appalling.’ Mrs Burgess, who died 80 years old in May 2009, changed her will shortly after moving from her home in Bradville, Milton Keynes, to a bungalow which was bought for her by her son,  a managing director of a recruitment company. The reason why she had excluded her son Peter from her will, according to the documents, was that she intended to reward him ‘lifetime provisions’ by making improvements to the bungalow. Peter and Libby Burgess, challenging the will, gave evidence about their mother’s deteriorating health, in particular memory loss and confusion. An Oxford psychiatry professor also gave evidence, concluding it was likely Mrs Burgess was suffering from a ‘moderate’ disorder of the mind at the time. Expensive squabble: Judges at the Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice have yet to pass judgement on the case, but lamented the fact that there will be little to no money left to inherit due to the legal costs . Following a hearing at Central London County Court in January, the will excluding Peter Burgess was struck in favour of an earlier document. In the first will Mrs Burgess divided her assets equally between her three children and was favoured after a judge found that she ‘loved all her children very much and in equal measure’. Mrs Hawes, who was also ordered to pay £18,000 back into her late mother’s estate, is now appealing against the ruling. Her lawyers argue there is no evidence to justify the judge’s conclusion that Mrs Burgess lacked the mental capacity to make a valid will and approve its contents. They also point out that the will was drawn up by an experienced solicitor who described the pensioner as being ‘compos mentis’. Piers Hill, for Mrs Hawes, said: ‘None of the evidence suggests an inability of Mrs Burgess to appreciate and comprehend the claims to which she ought to give effect in her will.’ Legal representatives of Peter and Libby Burgess say that the there was ‘serious falling out’ between Mrs Hawes and her brother in the background of the creation of the 2007 will. Their counsel, Penelope Reed QC said: ‘The judge found that Daphne did not intend to exclude her son from the will. 'She further found that, if Daphne had intended to cut her son out of the will, she would have told him.’ Reserving judgment on Mrs Hawes’ appeal, Lord Justice Mummery said it was ‘of importance’ because of the rights of older people to have their wishes honoured. He added: ‘When a person, towards the end of their life, makes a will, they ought to have their wishes respected unless it is very clear that it wasn’t what they wanted.’
Two sisters and brother in vicious court battle over Daphne Burgess's will .
Peter Burgess claims ill mother did not mean to leave him nothing .
By . Daily Mail Reporter . PUBLISHED: . 14:36 EST, 7 November 2012 . | . UPDATED: . 04:53 EST, 8 November 2012 . Three siblings quarrelling over their late mother's will are risking spending every penny they were about to inherit in the vicious court battle. Julia Hawes claims that there is no evidence that her mother lacked the mental capacity to change her will and cut her brother, Peter Burgess, out of her £120,000 estate. Mr Burgess and his other sister, Libby Burgess, insist the will is invalid and are fighting Mrs Hawes at the Court of Appeal. United: Siblings Libby and Peter Burgess contests their sister Julia Hawes' appeal against an earlier ruling their their mother was not of sound mind when she excluded Peter from her will . Their mother Daphne Burgess changed her will in the presence of her daughter Julia and a solicitor in January 2007, two years before she died; . Lord Justice Patten presiding the case commented on the huge legal costs already run up in the dispute, saying: ‘There is going to be nothing left in this estate. ‘One of the sadnesses about this case is that Libby - who was a beneficiary in both wills and was in most need of her mother’s bounty - gets nothing. I mean, it is just appalling.’ Mrs Burgess, who died 80 years old in May 2009, changed her will shortly after moving from her home in Bradville, Milton Keynes, to a bungalow which was bought for her by her son,  a managing director of a recruitment company. The reason why she had excluded her son Peter from her will, according to the documents, was that she intended to reward him ‘lifetime provisions’ by making improvements to the bungalow. Peter and Libby Burgess, challenging the will, gave evidence about their mother’s deteriorating health, in particular memory loss and confusion. An Oxford psychiatry professor also gave evidence, concluding it was likely Mrs Burgess was suffering from a ‘moderate’ disorder of the mind at the time. Expensive squabble: Judges at the Court of Appeal at the Royal Courts of Justice have yet to pass judgement on the case, but lamented the fact that there will be little to no money left to inherit due to the legal costs . Following a hearing at Central London County Court in January, the will excluding Peter Burgess was struck in favour of an earlier document. In the first will Mrs Burgess divided her assets equally between her three children and was favoured after a judge found that she ‘loved all her children very much and in equal measure’. Mrs Hawes, who was also ordered to pay £18,000 back into her late mother’s estate, is now appealing against the ruling. Her lawyers argue there is no evidence to justify the judge’s conclusion that Mrs Burgess lacked the mental capacity to make a valid will and approve its contents. They also point out that the will was drawn up by an experienced solicitor who described the pensioner as being ‘compos mentis’. Piers Hill, for Mrs Hawes, said: ‘None of the evidence suggests an inability of Mrs Burgess to appreciate and comprehend the claims to which she ought to give effect in her will.’ Legal representatives of Peter and Libby Burgess say that the there was ‘serious falling out’ between Mrs Hawes and her brother in the background of the creation of the 2007 will. Their counsel, Penelope Reed QC said: ‘The judge found that Daphne did not intend to exclude her son from the will. 'She further found that, if Daphne had intended to cut her son out of the will, she would have told him.’ Reserving judgment on Mrs Hawes’ appeal, Lord Justice Mummery said it was ‘of importance’ because of the rights of older people to have their wishes honoured. He added: ‘When a person, towards the end of their life, makes a will, they ought to have their wishes respected unless it is very clear that it wasn’t what they wanted.’
vicious court battle. Julia Hawes claims that brother, Peter Burgess, out of her £120,000 . Their mother Daphne Burgess changed her will in found that Daphne did not intend to exclude her