Ex-head girl who forged headmistress’ will in bid to claim £4.2m estate with 7-bed home loses court battle with family

A DISGRACED former head girl was fined $200,000 for forging her headmistress’ will in order to keep her $4.2 million wealth.

Additionally, 45-year-old Leigh Voysey has a criminal record following his High Court conviction for fraud and forgery.

In order to prevent it from being sold to developers, Voysey asserted that Maureen Renny, the previous head of the independent fee-paying Barn School, gave her the entire 4.2 million dollar estate, which included her 2.25 million dollar seven-bedroom detached house and surrounding acreage, instead of her own family.

Up until 1998, Ms. Voysey attended The Barn School, which was located in Mrs. Renny’s expansive house in Much Hadham, Herts, starting when she was eight years old.

Now a mother of one, Voysey said that Mrs. Renny had “always favoured her,” giving her the finest roles in class plays, choosing her as her head girl and prefect, and that during the final three years of her life, she “reconnected” by chance with her former mentor.

She said that in September 2019, the elderly former head asked her to draft a will and arrange for a friend to sign it on Mrs. Renny’s behalf because she was afraid that if she left her cherished former school building to her blood relations, it would be sold to developers.

However, Mrs. Renny’s family was skeptical and asserted that a 2016 will that benefited her relatives Gillian Ayre, Angela Eastwood, and Susan Vickers as well as her stepson Thomas and Katherine Renny’s children was her final valid will.

After Voysey was found guilty of fraud and forgery in October, the case was reported to the police and then returned to the High Court yesterday, where Master Karen Shuman rendered a decision in support of the 2016 will on behalf of the family.

In rendering a decision, Master Shuman declared Voysey’s complex tale of reestablishing contact with her former mentor to be untrue and mandated that she pay the attorneys’ fees, which total approximately 200,000, with $100,000 paid upfront.

Ms. Voysey said that she wrote her “distant blood relatives” out of her will because she was afraid they would sell the ancient schoolhouse to developers and that she became close to her former headmaster after visiting her as a carer and later a friend in 2016.

When Ms. Voysey visited as a caretaker, she was thrilled to discover that her former teacher still recognized her, according to documents filed with the court.

“Mrs Renny remembered exactly who I was, even though it was 25 years since I’d left her school,” she stated.

“Mrs. Renny informed me that ever since I left her school, she had been inquiring about me.

“It was an extremely moving day overall.

“After working one more shift as Mrs. Renny’s carer, I went to see her as a friend.

“I went to see Mrs. Renny whenever I could after we reconnected in February 2016—roughly three or four times a year.

“I would pour a cup of tea for Mrs. Renny and we would chat about my time at The Barn whenever I went to see her. That was a huge hit with both of us.

“She asked me how I felt about The Barn, also known as Hill House, during one of my visits, and I replied that I thought it was fantastic.

“Mrs Renny said to me ‘I hope it never gets built on’.”

She claimed that although Mrs. Renny had suggested leaving her estate to her in a new will, she was unwilling to face the death of her former mentor.

However, because she did not want anybody to know she was creating a new will, the former instructor finally made arrangements for two of Ms. Voysey’s acquaintances to witness it in September 2019.

“Mrs Renny asked me to complete the 2019 will and dictated to me what she wanted to be written on it,” she stated.

Members of Mrs. Renny’s family, however, disputed the matter and reported it to the police because they were dubious of the allegations regarding the 2019 will.

According to their attorney Kate Selway KC, “it is denied that the claimant had any continuing acquaintance with the deceased after leaving The Barn School.”

The claimant was working as a carer on February 19, 2016, including a lunch shift, and it is alleged that this was the only other significant time the claimant and the deceased interacted.

“On February 19, 2016, the claimant provided brief lunchtime care for the deceased just once.

“The claimant never again visited the deceased and stopped working as a carer for them.

She claimed that two of Ms. Voysey’s friends, whom Mrs. Renny was unaware of, witnessed the 2019 will, which was written in her handwriting.

In support of Mrs. Renny’s family’s argument that the 2016 will was her final authentic will, Mr. Shuman granted summary judgment, stating that Voysey’s claim over the 2019 will had been rejected due to her criminal conviction.

She said that a revision in the will resulted from Voysey’s elaborate ruse about reestablishing contact with her old headmistress.

She went on to say that she drove the witnesses to the deceased after they showed up at her house.

The 2019 will was executed in the lounge where they met the dead.

That has shown out to be untrue.

The claimant’s conviction on October 15, 2024, for forgery and fraud pertaining to the 2019 will represents a significant shift in the case’s background.

In civil procedures, the conviction for will forgery is accepted as proof of the forgery.

Because the assertion was predicated on the erroneous assumption that the 2019 will was a legal will, which it wasn’t, I decided to strike it out.

Then, for the benefit of Mrs. Renny’s family, she granted probate in solemn form of the 2016 will.

According to her, the 2016 will was legitimate and there were no questions regarding Mrs. Renny’s ability to make it or her comprehension of its terms.

She went on to say that the 2019 will be very different from that.

It seems like something that was purchased from a store or downloaded from the internet.

Through a video link, the judge informed Voysey that she had presented a fake will as a legitimate one and ordered her to pay the family’s alleged 197,000 legal fees on the basis of strict indemnity.

“When a fake will is utilized to support a claim in court, something is unusual.

A later assessment will determine the precise cost.

Due to her previous offenses, Voysey is awaiting sentencing.

In March 2021, developers Hill Residential paid 2.25 million to purchase Hill House.

After that, the home was sold for 975,000 in January 2022 after being detached from the surrounding property.

According to their website, Hill House now intends to construct a “large public park” and thirty new residences on the property they purchased.

Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!