A bitter legal tussle has erupted over the multimillion-rand estate of a woman who died and gave instructions in her will that a trust be established to take care of her beloved pets: two dachshunds, named Prince William and Prince Harry; and two African grey parrots, named Charlie and Frankie.
While the pets are being taken care of in what is called a dog and bird haven, funded by the trust to ensure their best care, numerous legal battles have raged about who is the actual executor of her estate.
Another battle – over the legality of the apparent two wills she left behind – is due to be decided at a later stage by the court.
But in the latest round of litigation, the neighbour of the deceased Violet Evans turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, as he has grave concerns over the actions of an attorney who claimed she is the executrix of the estate.
It is alleged that the attorney, Petra Retief, has over the past few years withdrawn about R3 million from the estate to foot her legal bills, and those of the advocate she had briefed, in this saga.
Caetano Soares, who was a good friend and long-standing neighbour of Evans, earlier turned to the court for an order that Retief hand over documents, or that the sheriff retain the documents from her, pertaining to the payments made by the estate.
An interim order was granted at the time, and the court has now confirmed the order. The aim of Soares in wanting these documents is to institute proceedings against Retief from dealing further with the estate, and to recover money which may be found to have been paid unlawfully to her by the estate.
Retief maintains that she is entitled to the money as she is the executor of the estate, but Soares maintains he is the executor. During one of the many legal battles, Retief was appointed an interim executor to the estate, but according to Soares, her appointment was never confirmed.
The High Court remarked that the dispute between the parties in this matter had a long and acrimonious history. It was triggered by the death of Evans. She died of natural causes in August 2018, at the age of 95.
Evans left a sizeable estate, but no heirs, only her pets, the two dachshunds and the two African grey parrots, to whom she was devoted.
In her various wills (the validity of which is the subject of bitter dispute between the parties), Evans established a trust for her pets and her sole wish was that they be well cared for by means of her estate funds after her death.
Shortly after her death, Soares was appointed as executrix of her estate. This was in terms of a will and testament executed by Evans in 2016.
Retief latter applied to be executor on the basis of her contention that the 2016 will was invalid, having been superseded by a later will and testament executed by Evans in 2018, in terms of which Retief was appointed as the interim executrix.
In terms of that order, Retief was, among others, ordered to see that a payment of R10,000 a month is made from the Pamela Evans Pet Trust towards the upkeep of the dachshunds, as well as R1,000 a month towards the birds. These payments were to be made in the interim, pending the final determination of the disputes.
But Soares, who was given permission by Evans before her death to visit her beloved pets after she died, told the court that upon perusal of some of the bank statements pertaining to the estate, he became alarmed.
According to him, it was revealed, among other things, that Retief had failed to make payments in respect of the maintenance of the pets.
According to him, and in terms of statements handed to court, Relief had made a series of large payments to herself and an advocate of the Johannesburg Society of Advocates – purportedly for litigation fees.
Retief in turn admitted that she made the payments reflected in the bank statements, including those made from the estate to herself and to the advocate, but she maintained that she was entitled to do so.
The court said: “It is a matter of grave concern that Ms Retief, an attorney of this Honourable Court, can contend that she is the executrix of the estate in these circumstances. Also a matter of grave concern is that enormous sums of money have been paid by Ms Retief to herself and advocate Knoetze, out of the estate, over an extended period.”
The court said that it appeared to be highly questionable – given the limited litigation between the parties thus far – that all these payments could be justified as litigation fees.
Armed with the documents he wanted to obtain from Retief, Soares is meanwhile expected to later return to the court to take a closer look at the legality of the money removed from the estate. This is besides the battle to determine which of Evans’s two wills is the true one.
It is not known from this judgment exactly what the wills entail, apart from Evans’ wishes that her beloved pets be taken care of.
Pretoria News