Parkrun legend, 81, in £325K inheritance fight with stepkids over home | UK | News

An 81-year-old Parkrun legend dubbed ‘Marvellous Mike’ is locked in a £325,000 inheritance fight with his stepkids who want to throw him out of his home.

When super-fit pensioner Michael Morfey’s second wife Karen Morfey died in 2021, she left him nothing in her will despite the couple having been together for 18 years.

Retired teacher Karen gave her £600,000 house in south London to her two children, Alexander and Emma Davies, in equal shares, granting her husband only the right to stay for a year after her death.

Now the sporty widower – who has completed over 300 parkruns – has gone to court, claiming the will ignored his needs, and is suing for a £300,000 half share of the house, plus £25,000 to cover maintenance costs.

But Karen’s kids are fighting his claim for “reasonable financial provision” from her estate at Central London County Court and calling him a “trespasser” in their mum’s house.

And they also claim he should pay back £144,000 to the estate, having transferred almost all her cash and investments into his name before she died.

Mr Morfey is a veteran runner who used to compete for Streatham Striders Running Club. He has clocked up over 300 park runs in his time and has been dubbed “Marvellous Mike” by parkrun pals at Tooting Common.

He met his second wife, Karen, in 2003, with the pair setting up home in her house in Streatham five years later and marrying in December 2009.

Karen died in April 2021 at the age of 70, nearly four years after being diagnosed with dementia in March 2017.

In a will penned in 2014, she left her house in Glenister Park Road, Streatham, to her son and daughter and minor legacies to her brother Mark Daniels and niece Lucy Whitehouse, leaving her husband nothing.

But claiming reasonable provision from his wife’s estate under the 1975 Inheritance Act, Mr Morfey’s barrister Daniel Soar argued that the pensioner is entitled to “maintain the standard of living he had enjoyed prior to Karen’s death.”

To provide that, he is asking the court to award him a 50 per cent stake in the family house, plus the right to live there, along with £25,000 to cover ten years’ maintenance on the house.

However, Karen’s children are resisting his claim and accusing their step-dad of filtering her cash and investments into his name before she died, having previously allegedly drawn up a will in his favour behind her back.

They claim that Mr Morfey is effectively a “trespasser” in their mum’s old home and the pair are seeking a court order for possession of the house.

The siblings have “called into question” multiple transactions, totalling £144,044, claiming Karen either “lacked mental capacity” to approve them or that her husband “procured the transactions by undue influence”.

But Mr Morfey’s barrister challenged this claim, arguing that it was based on a misunderstanding of the way the couple managed their accounts.

In fact, he told Judge Alan Johns KC a detailed analysis of the couple’s finances between 2016 and 2020 showed that Mr Morfey “contributed nearly £18,000 more than Karen in this period”.

“So, in this context, the impugned transactions clearly do not call for an explanation,” he said.

The court heard that, in his witness statement, Mr Morfey claimed both Karen’s children “lost interest in her” after she changed her will in their favour in 2014.

“The implication is that her children didn’t really care about their mother or her care towards the end,” said their barrister Hazel Hobbs.

“But we can see from emails and texts from her daughter that she took an active role in her care, and Alex would attend regularly to take her out to lunch.”

Ms Hobbs went on to claim Mr Morfey had “misappropriated” tens of thousands from his wife’s account – or their joint accounts – while she was alive.

And she argued that, as Karen became increasingly frail from 2020 onwards, she had no clear understanding of what her husband was doing with her money.

“The basis of our claim effectively boils down to misappropriation of almost all of Karen’s liquid assets/investments during her lifetime by (Mr Morfey),” said the barrister.

“It is the [children’s] position that any consent that was given by Karen to undertake the transactions was procured by undue influence, whether presumed or actual, including the alleged transfer by Karen herself in 2017.

“Furthermore, as Karen’s mental health declined, it is averred that she became more susceptible to Mr Morfey’s influence and also lacked capacity to consent to the transactions from around March 2020.”

She added: “The physical and mental strength of Karen is a relevant factor in determining how much pressure would have been necessary to overbear her will.

“It is averred that as time went on and Karen’s condition progressed, she became more susceptible to undue influence.

“Another relevant factor is that of time, in that pressure applied over a lengthier period of time can have the effect of sapping a person’s will.

“The claimant placed pressure on Karen for a number of years leading up to 2017.”

SHe continued: “It is submitted that it was evidently not in the best interests of Karen for her substantial investments and savings to be transferred into the name of the claimant.

“There was clearly no intention of simply looking after Karen’s money, but instead an intention to take them for himself in his own self-interest, particularly as the claimant has refused to return such monies to her estate.

“The claimant acted in his own self-interest in transferring Karen’s assets into his own name.”

Ms Hobbs claimed Mr Morfey’s financial meddling dated back to 2013 when he “seemingly” instructed a financial planning firm to “draw up a will for Karen, leaving her estate to him”.

But Karen was so “upset and concerned” about the terms of this will and a linked trust that she left home for a short period, before drafting what became her final will and testament of August 2014, leaving her home to her children.

“Mr Morfey, subject to determinations from the court, drew up a trust in relation to Karen’s assets for his benefit and drew up a will, again for his benefit, seemingly unbeknownst to Karen,” said Ms Hobbs.

“In an email dated 20 July 2014, Karen raised concerns about a will having been drawn up without her being there.

“Further, Karen was so distraught about the trust and the new will, which was contrary to her express wishes, that she stayed with her brother and wrote out a handwritten will to ensure that her wishes were carried out.”

From 2017 onwards, Karen was “incredibly vulnerable” due to her dementia, said Ms Hobbs, meaning that her husband had a special responsibility to manage her affairs conscientiously.

Rebutting Mr Morfey’s financial needs claim, the barrister said he already had “significant resources in the form of both capital and liquid assets.”

He also owns his own £550,000 rented out property in nearby Sherwood Avenue, Streatham, while remaining in robust health for a man of his years.