A Filipino bride who was offered £10,000 and a one-way ticket home by her stepchildren after her husband died has lost a fight for a share of his fortune.
Rosita Hendry, 52, married Michael Hendry, who was 20 years her senior, two years after meeting in the Philippines in 2001 and they lived together in Surrey.
But amid accusations of alcoholism and adultery, the marriage collapsed and they were in the process of divorcing when Mr Hendry died, aged 70, in 2017.
Rosita Hendry, 52, married Michael Hendry, who was 20 years her senior, two years after meeting in the Philippines in 2001 and they lived together in Surrey
By then, he had already cut her out of his will, leaving everything – including his home near Hampton Court Palace – to two of his children from an old relationship.
And when Mrs Hendry went to her stepchildren to ask for a share, she was told she could have £10,000 in cash and a one-way flight home.
She rejected that offer and later more generous ones, asking for half of his £220,000 estate. But she has now ended up with nothing after the children won a court battle.
London’s High Court heard Mr Hendry already had children Michael Jnr, 21, Dorothy 30, and Melanie, who lives in the US, when he met Mrs Hendry in the Philippines.
Together with Michael Jnr, the couple lived in Mr Hendry’s home on Hampton Court Parade in East Molesey, and were regulars in their local pub.
When they wed, the couple signed a pre-nuptial agreement, under which Mrs Hendry would get only a flight home and £10,000 if they split.
Mr Hendry (left) already had children Michael Jnr, 21, Dorothy 30, and Melanie, who lives in the US, when he met Mrs Hendry (right) in the Philippines.
After Mr Hendry’s death, Michael Jnr and Dorothy offered her the same deal as she agreed to in the pre-nup, given that the relationship had unravelled.
Judge Karen Shuman said Mrs Hendry claimed the breakup came when Mr Hendry began drinking heavily and became violent, obliging her to leave home and move in with a friend who supported her.
Dorothy Pertiwi, 30, is among Mr Hendry’s three children. She claimed Mrs Hendry had an affair and this drove her father to drink
But Dorothy claimed that was not true, that Mrs Hendry had an affair and the revelation had driven her father to drink.
The judge did not make any findings in relation to any of the allegations.
Mrs Hendry petitioned for divorce in November 2016 and said she was seeking a 50-50 split of her husband’s money.
But the divorce never came, because Mr Hendry passed away the next February. After she was widowed, Rosita insisted she was now due half, in spite of the pre-nup.
She had been left with very little, receiving only £63 a month from her husband’s pension plan, the judge said, adding that she had also rejected a later offer by Mr Henry’s children to split everything three ways.
It was not until April 2018 that Mrs Hendry finally lodged a claim for ‘reasonable financial provision’ from her husband’s estate.
But Judge Shuman has now ruled that her claim was made too late and must fail. The judge said she had known that there was a time limit and missed it
When they wed, the couple signed a pre-nuptial agreement, under which Mrs Hendry would get only a flight home and £10,000 if she and Mr Hendry (pictured on holiday) split
‘I give full weight to the fact that Rosita has an arguable case, albeit it not a strong one as contended for, and that the estate has not been distributed,’ she said.
‘However, I do not consider that Rosita acted promptly when the circumstances are fully analysed.’
Lawyers for Mrs Hendry had accepted that the time limit – six months from grant of probate – for filing a claim had been missed
The decision means the money will be split equally between Michael Jnr and Dorothy.
‘It was the testamentary wish of the deceased that Michael and Dorothy should each receive an equal half share of his estate,’ said the judge.
‘It is a modest estate and the principal asset is the property, which has a value of approximately £220,000. Michael is only 21 years old and his outgoings exceed his income
‘Dorothy is in a precarious financial position and has been using her savings to support her brother.’ She added: ‘They have yet to receive their inheritance.’
Lawyers for Mrs Hendry had accepted that the time limit – six months from grant of probate – for filing a claim had been missed.
But they argued that she should be allowed to go ahead anyway, since negotiations were ongoing and everyone knew a claim was in the offing.
The judge, rejecting that argument, commented that whilst Mrs Hendry will now get nothing from her late husband’s estate, she could attempt to sue her solicitors for missing the time limit to file her claim.
