A FORMER unpaid carer is to be removed from the will of an 80-year-old dementia sufferer who could not decide whether to leave his estate to his care home, his estranged relatives or the JSPCA.

The Royal Court has authorised the Viscount to revoke the man’s will after finding that he had consistently said his former carer should no longer inherit his money.

The care-home resident made a valid will in 2018 naming his then-carer as his sole beneficiary. Two doctors, including his GP, assessed his capacity at the time.

The carer said that she had cared for the man without payment for more than ten years, spent her own money furnishing a bedsit for him and did not know why he had decided to “disinherit her”.

She added that the man had previously been “adamant” that his brother should not receive his savings, having reportedly not seen members of his family for more than 40 years.

However, their relationship later broke down following a disagreement over payments from the man’s bank account.

The matter came to the Viscount’s attention in February 2025 after a care-home administrator reported that the carer had left the man his bank card and passport and told him to pay his own bills. His bank refused to help because the carer still held lasting power of attorney over his affairs.

The carer later resigned from that role and the Viscount was appointed to manage the man’s property and finances after he was found to lack capacity.

The man subsequently told care-home staff, Viscount’s officers and the court that he did not want his former carer to inherit his estate.

Although he remained consistent on that point, his ideas about who should receive his estate instead varied between his care home, his brother, his brother’s children and the JSPCA.

His mental health deteriorated during this period, but the court stressed that the wishes of someone who has lost capacity cannot simply be ignored.

The Bailiff, Robert MacRae, sitting with Jurats Christensen and Berry, said the case had not been “an easy decision”, particularly as the court accepted that the woman had spent years caring for the man voluntarily.

But he added: “The expression of his wishes in respect of his will has been consistent and clear.”

The failure to formally revoke the will had also caused the man “past and continuing distress”. The court therefore ruled that it was lawful for the Viscount to take the necessary steps to revoke it.

No replacement will is being made because the man was not consistent about whom he wanted to benefit. His estate is now likely to pass under intestacy rules to his brother or his brother’s children.

If no eligible relative can be found, it will pass to the Crown.