Mum gave daughters £1,000,000 so she could claim benefits – and now can’t get it back
A family has been torn apart after a greedy mum handed over her £1million fortune to her daughters but then wanted it back.
Camilla Bains transferred her £295,000 divorce settlement to her children and set fire to papers proving she owned her £800,000 home so she could continue claiming benefits.
But then she had a change of heart and has now tried to sue daughters Sonia and Sharn.
She claimed they had ‘colluded to make up a story’ to keep her out of her wealth.
They said her demands for the five-bedroom house in Sutton and teh cash were motivated by greed and jealousy of their success in life – one is a doctor with the FA, the other a lawyer.
Judge Nigel Gerald agreed with the sisters at Central London County Court, ruling that she cannot have the house or the money.
He said: ‘It would be wrong to reach the conclusion that either daughter has done the dirty on their mother.
‘Rather, it seems to me more likely than not that the mother, having gifted these monies to her children, has realised the unwisdom of her conduct and now seeks to get back that which she gifted.’
Giving judgment, the judge described a ‘very sad, troubled and unfortunate family’.
‘It would be an understatement to say that there has been a high degree of animosity, if not hate, between the children and the mother,’ he said.
However, it was not always like that, with Sonia acting as donor when Mrs Bains needed a third kidney transplant in 2017.
She took the drastic step after her mum informed her that her ‘second kidney is failing and that she is dying’, her lawyers told the court.
Mrs Bains, who relied on means-tested benefits due to her ill-health, was divorced from her husband in 2011, but the financial wrangling between them dragged on until 2019.
Although she had previously received the family home, Mrs Bains had wanted to move as her ex was still living next door and so a new house was bought in Rosehill Gardens, Sutton.
The judge said the house was in her daughter Sonia’s name, but that documents signed by mum and daughter made it clear that Mrs Bains was the true owner.
Judge Gerald said that although Sonia’s name was on the house, it had been agreed that her mum was the true beneficial owner of the five-bed property, which was put up for sale two years ago at an asking price of £800,000.
But that changed when she was warned by her lawyers around the time of the 2019 divorce payout of the risk of benefit fraud.
A key letter was signed around that time in which the mother said she no longer had any ownership of the house and that she had burned previous trust deeds which had confirmed it was hers, he said.
‘In my judgment, it is plain that this document was legally effective and binding,’ he said.
‘I also accept Sharn’s evidence that shortly after mother signed this document, she went and burned the 2015 and 2017 Rosehill Gardens trust deeds.
‘Mother was consciously divesting herself of her assets so as to retain her welfare benefits.
‘She had been alerted as to the risks of benefit fraud in May 2019. She wanted to get shot of this property so she could protect her benefits.’
He said the letter came three months after the 2019 consent order ending Mrs Bains’ divorce, which had been on terms which saw Sonia receive £100,000 and Sharn £240,000.
In her court claim, Mrs Bains said the money was only to be looked after by her daughters and that she is now entitled to get it back.
But crucially, the judge said, although £45,000 of that received by Sonia was to be held on trust for her younger brother, there was no mention in the divorce court order of the rest being held for anyone other than the recipient.
The only rights over it which Mrs Bains had was in nominating who it was paid to, and the divorce judge was told that she would not own it.
‘The lawyers and mother well understood that the recipient of the money would be the owner and not the mother,’ he said.
‘The mother would just have to trust that person to return the money.
‘Implicit was an understanding by the mother and her lawyers that there was a risk that once the recipient got the money he or she might just keep it and not return it.’
He added: ‘It is common ground that she didn’t reveal to the benefits agency any interest in this money and that was because she knew the money wasn’t hers.
‘She wanted to avoid any sort of benefits fraud. She knew this money wasn’t her money and she was not entitled to it.
‘The £55,000 paid to Sonia and the £240,000 to Sharn was their money and effectively a gift.’
The decision means Sonia is true owner of the house and £55,000 of the money paid to her, while Sharn owns the £240,000 she received.
The other £45,000 which went to Sonia was for the benefit of her brother, the judge found.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.