Sisters sue sister over father's home

Dennis Bagnall built his dream house in 1970 a short walk from the beach in Cape Town's upmarket suburb of Camps Bay, and brought up his five daughters there.

The house was a haven for Bagnall in his declining years, and he enjoyed sketching and watching the world go by, surrounded by his art collection.

But after he died in 2016 at the age of 86, the multimillion-rand property became ground zero in a battle between his daughters that has only just been ended by a high court judge.

The home is now surrounded by swanky apartment blocks and the municipal valuation is R11.2m.

But as joint executor of her father's estate with her siblings, Shelley van Acker - who has lived rent-free in the house for nine years - did everything possible to prevent it being sold so her sisters could enjoy their inheritance, the court said.

Now, after an order removing her as an executor, the other four sisters - Andrea Bagnall, Yvette Endean, Deborah Louw and Ashleigh Bagnall - can go ahead with the sale. But legal fees from their long-running fight with Van Acker mean they will be left with only a fraction of its value.

The protracted legal battle culminated in a Cape Town high court judgment that traced the origins of the rift between the sisters to 2010, when Van Acker, her son and his girlfriend moved in with Bagnall. Van Acker said she wanted to take care of her elderly and ailing father.

Since then, Van Acker has lived rent-free in the upmarket home, except for 13 months in 2014 and 2015 "when she paid a non-market-related rental and during most of which time she also sublet to a tenant", said the judgment.

Tensions escalated when Bagnall's health deteriorated and he developed dementia and "severe mobility impairment". A curator was appointed to manage his affairs, despite Van Acker's opposition, and in 2014 it was suggested he should move to a frail-care facility. The curator and Bagnall's four other daughters decided to sell the home to pay for the old man's care.

The curator accepted a R5.6m offer from the Danem Trust, which was prepared to pay an R867,000 deposit to fund Bagnall's care and take possession only two years later.

"Effectively, the agreement provided a means whereby he could continue to remain in his home for the following two years, with his care paid for by the purchaser," said judge Robert Henney.

The curator asked the master of the high court for consent to sell the property in 2015 but "Van Acker strenuously objected" in six letters to the master.

Henney said: "Her principal objection was that, according to her, the property had not been sold for its market value. This resulted in the master not rendering a decision before the unfortunate death of the deceased on 3 June 2016."

Bagnall's death ended the curatorship and his five daughters were appointed as co-executors of his estate. All, except for Van Acker, were in favour of the Danem Trust sale.

"Van Acker ... took steps to prevent the transaction from proceeding," the judgment said. "The four sisters contend that in doing so she acted in defiance . of the deceased's will, in which he had enjoined his daughters 'to consult and co-operate with each other to the fullest extent' ... and in the event they were unable to do so, the decision of the majority was to prevail.

"The four sisters were of the view that, given her obstructive conduct, it was clear that for as long as Van Acker continued in office as a co-executrix, the finalisation of the winding-up of the estate would be held up indefinitely," said Henney.

"According to the four sisters Van Acker's conduct ... indicated that she was intent on using every conceivable tactic and stratagem to prevent them from taking any actions of which she disapproved."

The four sisters then began a court application to remove Van Acker as an executor. She launched a counter application for an order declaring the Danem Trust sale agreement null and void, but the court ruled in favour of the four sisters and slapped Van Acker with legal costs last month.

The four sisters' lawyer, Terence Matzdorff, said the siblings were reluctant to comment because they "do not believe that family issues should be aired in the press".

"The clients whom we represent do not wish to ... respond to your e-mail. Kindly be guided accordingly and should you publish an article, please ensure that this response forms part of it."

Van Acker's lawyer, Sandie MacDonald, said her client "intends taking the judgment on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal".