Sandra Thomas, 65, and her husband Philip Thomas were said to have acted out of "greed" and had "unduly influenced" her mum into handing over three properties - including a family home14:55, 22 May 2026A "greedy and entitled" daughter who spent her mum's fortune on holidays, posh meals and her daughter's five-star wedding has been ordered to pay back £2.6 million of it after losing a High Court will battle with her brother.‌Sandra Thomas, 65, is still slated for a massive multi-million pound inheritance after a judge rejected claims her elderly mum, Jeanne MacDougall, was not in her right mind when she cut her son Gary, 70, out of her final will. Acting out of "greed," Sandra and her husband, Philip Thomas, had misused over £1m of Jeanne's money as a personal piggy bank in an "extensive and wholesale" way, using her accounts "as if they were their own," said Judge Nicola Rushton KC.‌On top of that, they had "unduly influenced" the pensioner into handing them three properties - including a family holiday home - together now worth about £1.6million. The judge upheld Jeanne's will - largely benefiting Sandra and Philip - but ruled that they must pay back to the estate the money they took, as well as the properties, or their values, a total of around £2.6m of which builder Gary is now entitled to half.‌READ MORE: Bank of England interest rate vote this week 'a foregone conclusion' despite Iran war cost of living hikeREAD MORE: Mum 'cut love cheat married son from £5m inheritance' as he battles sister in court"Suffice it to say, the misuse of Jeanne's bank accounts by Sandra and Philip was extensive and wholesale," she said in her judgment. "Jeanne's accounts and her assets were simply used by Sandra and Philip as if they were their own", adding their behaviour was "without any regard whatsoever" for the needs of Jeanne.During the trial in February, the judge heard the MacDougall family fortune derived from the siblings' property developer father Alec MacDougall's "substantial real estate portfolio." Development properties were mainly bought up in the Acton and Ealing areas of west London, renovated and rented out, generating significant profits.‌For Gary, barrister Harry Martin claimed that over the years it had been made clear to the two siblings by their parents that they would ultimately receive "broadly equal financial treatment and inheritance." This included his father insisting to Gary that he would not require a significant pension pot as he would inherit property on which to live on in his retirement, said the barrister.Following their dad's death, the siblings' mum made a will in 2008, which Mr Martin said amounted to a "broadly equal" split between her son and his family on one side and daughter and son-in-law on the other. Under that will, Gary and his family would receive some properties, while others would go to Sandra and Philip, and Sandra got most of the cash in her bank accounts.‌But another will was then made in 2011, under which all properties went to his sister and brother-in-law, while Sandra would continue to receive the majority of her savings. Gary and Sandra would split what was left, but due to the costs and expenses of estate administration, that was "likely to be worth nil," Mr Martin said.Suing, Gary, who had worked with his mum in the family business, claimed the will was invalid as Jeanne had by then "lost almost all of her independence." The pensioner also lacked the necessary mental capacity due to dementia when she signed the will and did not properly understand its effect, he claimed.And he also laid claim to a share of more than £1m of his mum's money, which he said was "misappropriated" from her bank accounts before she died and spent by his sister and brother-in-law on themselves and their family. Among other things, the money went on meals at the Ivy, holidays, new cars, shopping trips and their daughter's wedding at the Savoy, he said.‌For the couple, who are now estranged, Alexander Learmonth KC said they accept overstepping their duties under a lasting power of attorney (LPA) by spending Jeanne's money on themselves and their family. However, he said it was essentially "an advance on their inheritance" because most of her cash was destined for Sandra under both the 2008 and 2011 wills anyway.They had not been properly advised about what they could do and believed they could deal with her money in the way they believed she would have wanted, spending it in order to reduce inheritance tax, he said. There were perfectly explicable reasons why Jeanne had changed her will in favour of her daughter and son-in-law, who had looked after her in her old age, he added.That included a sense of how well-off Gary had become as owner of the family business and perhaps also his mum's "irritation" with him due to his "sharp words in the office" and his "marital infidelity." But giving evidence, Gary denied that "a very brief fling" he had years ago lay behind his mum's decision to change her will, telling the judge she would have given him "both barrels" if she was really annoyed.Article continues belowGiving judgment on the case, Judge Rushton found that Jeanne's 2011 will was not tainted by undue influence, nor by mental frailness. But she ruled that the actions of Sandra and Philip over the years had depleted the value of the estate, which should have included the properties gifted in 2008 to the couple and the money they spent.The effect of the judge's ruling is that the 2011 will stands under which Sandra and Philip get the properties Jeanne owned at death, with Sandra inheriting the cash in her accounts. But the previously almost worthless "residue" of the estate - of which Gary gets half - will now be swelled by a holiday home and flats, together worth about £1.6m, as well as the couple having to account for the money they took, thought to be over £1m.She said an account would have to be taken of the money spent by the couple to determine what they must pay to the estate as compensation, which would then be split with Gary. The exact value of the multimillion-pound estate has still to be calculated but Sandra and Phillip will still get at least double the £1.3m Gary is in line for under the upheld will.