A former West End cabaret star locked in battle with her son over her late husband’s will did not forge it in order to collect his fortune, a court has heard.
Jobyna Watts, 92, inherited her husband Eustace Watts' estate when he died in 2008, while their son, Carlton, did not receive anything.
Carlton, 64, took his mother, a former dancer at the legendary Windmill Theatre, to court, alleging his father’s 2000 will which left everything to Mrs Watts was forged and that an earlier will was the true last testament.
But in a preliminary ruling in the case on Monday, the High Court found that the 2000 will was not forged.
“My evaluation of Carlton’s evidence is that he holds a fixed belief that his mother has dishonestly and unfairly deprived him of his entitlement to his father’s estate, and that this has coloured and distorted his view of the factual matters relevant to this case,” ruled Master Julia Clark.
“For this reason, I do not consider him a credible witness, and only accept his evidence when supported by independent contemporaneous documentation.”
Mrs Watts made her name as a dancer after the Second World War, and went on to form a double act with singer-songwriter Eustace, who used the stage name Peter Ricardo. The couple were married in 1955.
Eustace, the adopted son of a judge, formed a popular calypso band during his music career before turning his hand to business, running a hotel and amassing a portfolio of residential and commercial properties in west London.
Mr Watts claims a previous will from 1994, which split his father’s estate between himself, his mother and his brother Fraser Watts was his father’s last true will.
The court heard of increasing bitterness between mother and son over the will, with Mr Watts in one case putting a large notice on his car saying: “Jobyna Watts forged her husband’s will and stole his money.”
Mr Watts cited a forensic witness who claimed the “pen pressure of the solicitor’s and witness’s signatures are very similar” and the “angle of letter formation” on Eustace’s signature was similar to Mrs Watts’ signature.
But Master Clark said that the witness “presented as confused”, and there was nothing in his CV “which demonstrates expertise in handwriting analysis”.
She said that in any case, a solicitor who witnessed Eustace’s 2000 will had remembered doing so because “the deceased because he was a long-standing client of the firm” and therefore could vouch that it was not forged.
The case remains open but no hearings are currently listed.
