A window cleaner who says he gave away a fortune in gold coins after being left in charge of his dead brother's estate has been ordered him to pay the money back to his family.
Peter Ivory, 58, now faces a £250,000 bill after claiming he "did the right thing" by following his dying brother Mick's wishes not to let the rest of the family get their hands on his £414,000 fortune.
He said Mick was adamant on his deathbed that his money should go to the "hard-working poor and homeless" because he disapproved of much of his family.
After receiving tube driver Mick's £414,000 fortune, Mr Ivory says he converted most of the £367,000 that was left after expenses into gold coins, which he then handed out to the needy on the streets of Cambridge, the Isle of Wight and Scotland.
But the High Court in London heard because the cash should legally have been split with other members of the family because Mick had not made a will.
And now, after being told he committed a "monumental breach" of his duty as administrator of Mick's estate, he has been told by a judge to stump up the cash he owes his relatives.
"You may think you took a moral position but what you have actually done is deprive other people of money that is actually theirs, and that is not a moral position," said Judge Timothy Bowles.
The decision means Mr Ivory, from Hendon, north west London, will have to hand over about £100,000 to his brother Alan, £95,000 to another brother John and £50,000 to his nephew Michael.
The court heard Mick died without making a will aged 61 in November 2018 and that afterwards Peter handled his affairs and arranged the sale of his home in Wallington, Surrey.
Mick's estate consisted of the proceeds of sale of the house, his beloved Lurcher dog Lady and a collection of rare Osmond Family memorabilia, accumulated by his wife, Pat, who died four years before him.
Under normal intestacy laws, which apply when someone dies without making a will, Alan, John and Michael expected to share the money with Peter as Mick's surviving next of kin.
But Peter told the court he had been holding his brother's hand as he lay dying in hospital and that Mick had been adamant that his money should go to the poor, and not his family.
"Mick told me to keep it all and, if I couldn't keep it, to give it away," he said.
"His whole plan was to make sure they didn't get it."
He said he passed on the memorabilia to the Osmonds fanclub, took in his late brother's dog, handed out a few small gifts to others, and then converted most of the rest to gold coins and travelled the country, handing out the fortune to those who needed it.
"It doesn't take long to give it away," he said.
The case ended up in court after a claim by brothers Alan and John, and nephew Michael, to their share of the estate, which they said Peter had no right to deprive them of.
When the dispute first blew up, Peter wrote to his brother Alan, saying that Mick "made me promise not to give his well-earned money (to) the rest of the family."
In court, Peter accepted that what he did was against the law, but insisted he considered the rest of the family were "entitled to nothing" morally.
"Mick worked his whole life, 40 years on the underground, for that money. I couldn't give them his money," he said.
"They didn't sit holding his hand as he was dying. They didn't hear what he said to me.
"He told me what he wanted to do. I thought my responsibility was to follow my dying brother's wishes.
"I made a mistake, but I didn't make a mistake as far as my brother is concerned."
Ordering that he hand over the cash to Alan, John and Michael, the judge told Peter he had committed a "monumental breach of his duty as administrator" of his brother's estate.
"You knew that they had legal entitlements, but you decided that, because your brother had expressed certain wishes, you weren't going to comply with the law," he said.
"What you have done - and have decided to do - is think 'I don't think much of the people legally entitled to this money and so I am going to give it to someone else'."
As well as ordering him to hand over £245,000 to the other family members, the judge ordered Peter to pay their lawyers' bills for the case, estimated at about £10,000.
"This entire litigation has been caused by Mr Ivory's decision to do what he did," he said.
"Legally speaking, it was completely wrong from beginning to end. None of this would be happening were it not for that election that he made.
"Everything which has had to be done has been done consequent upon his behaviour, and ergo he must pay the costs."
