Contestation of secret will dismissed also on appeal

An appeal lodged by Agatha Formosa Gauci from a judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court has been dismissed by the Court of Appeal presided by Chief Justice Vincent Degaetano, Mr Justice Joseph D. Camilleri and Mr Justice Joseph A. Filletti.

While declaring appellant's claims to be frivolous, the court declined to condemn her to pay double costs for the appeal.

Formosa Gauci had filed her writ in the First Hall of the Civil Court against Dr Francis Lanfranco and his wife Claire.

The court was requested to declare null a secret will made by Formosa Gauci's twin sister, Carmelina De Battista, who died on August 6, 2000, on the basis that the will was obtained by fraud.

In its judgment delivered in February, 2002, the first court had dismissed Formosa Gauci's writ on the basis that she lacked the necessary juridical interest to move her suit.

The court upheld defendants' plea that were the will to be annulled, then a previous will made by the late Carmelina De Battista would take effect.

In terms of the previous will, De Battista's widower, Robert De Battista, had been appointed as her universal heir.

As a result, Formosa Gauci did not have a juridical or legal interest that justified her filing the litigation.

Formosa Gauci appealed from this judgment to the Court of Appeal and submitted that she did not have to be an heir or legatee under some previous will made by her sister in order to have an interest in annulling her sister's last will.

Appellant added that she was fighting for an issue of principle and not for money, and that she had a moral interest in the suit, as she was entitled to defend her sister's memory.

The Court of Appeal ruled in its judgment that it was in full agreement with the conclusions reached by the First Hall of the Civil Court.

A legal interest was necessary for the filing of any litigation, for otherwise any person would be able to sue third parties on matters in which he or she were not concerned.

Case law and legal doctrine had established that a legal interest had to be direct, legitimate and actual, and that it had to result from the writ of summons itself.

The legal interest could not be hypothetical, nor could an action be filed so as to cause harm to defendant without obtaining any advantage to plaintiff.

The court noted that when Formosa Gauci's sister died she was married to De Battista and had no children.

In 1974, Carmelina De Battista and her husband had made a joint will, appointing each other as universal heir.

However, in 1995, Carmelina De Battista had drawn up a secret will by which she had revoked her previous will.

By means of the 1995 will, De Battista had left her sister a legacy of Lm10,000.

She had also named Claire Lanfranco as a co-legatee and had appointed Dr Lanfranco as her universal heir.

Other legacies had been made out in favour of the Archbishop, as representative of the Church, and in favour of various monasteries and philanthropic organisations.

It also resulted that Formosa Gauci had accepted the legacy made out in her favour.

In its judgment, the appellate court added that were Formosa Gauci to successfully annul her sister's secret will, then her sister's heir would be her widower, Robert De Battista.

The latter had declared, before the First Hall of the Civil Court, that he was not in agreement with Formosa Gauci's claims in this case.

As Formosa Gauci's writ requested only the annulment of her late sister's secret will, she could not claim before the Court of Appeal that her interest was that of defending her late sister's memory.

Neither could the Court of Appeal uphold Formosa Gauci's later assertion that she was not attacking the validity of the whole of her sister's secret will (thereby leaving the bequest of Lm10,000 in her favour as valid) but only claiming that the will had been obtained through fraud.

The Court of Appeal added that as a relative of Carmelina De Battista, her sister was entitled to disagree with the contents of her sister's will.

However, this did not entitle Formosa Gauci to a legal interest in the case.

Furthermore, any sane individual was entitled to dispose of his estate according to his wishes, irrespective of the wishes of other parties.

The court concluded its judgment by dismissing Formosa Gauci's appeal and by confirming the judgment of the First Hall of the Civil Court.