Two British women, who married the same man in Las Vegas a few years apart, are now battling in court over control of an inheritance estimated at $2.4 million. The case highlights the legal consequences of a bigamous marriage and the protections offered by inheritance law in the United Kingdom.
A bigamous husband and a fortune of 2.4 million
James Dinsdale, a British accountant who died of cancer at the age of 55 in October 2020, married cosmetic dentist Dr. Victoria Fowell in Las Vegas in 2012, and then, in 2017, beautician Margaret Dinsdale, also in Las Vegas, without having legally dissolved his first marriage. Legally, the second marriage to Margaret is therefore considered "null and void," which automatically excluded her from the estate, leaving Victoria, as his legally recognized wife, and James Dinsdale's son, William, as heirs to the fortune estimated at approximately £1.8 million ($2.4 million).
Margaret's legal battle
According to the Independent , Margaret maintains that she has lived with James Dinsdale since 2015, married him "in good faith," and cared for him full-time during his illness, even giving up her job. Feeling wronged, she has filed a lawsuit seeking a "reasonable provision" under the UK Inheritance Act, and is claiming at least half of the inheritance, approximately £900,000.
The role of the Inheritance Act and the question of "spouse" status
In the absence of a will, James Dinsdale's estate was distributed according to the rules of intestacy, which prioritize the legal spouse and children. However, in July, a judge recognized Margaret's rights as his spouse under the Inheritance Act, allowing her to claim a judicial share of the estate, even though her marriage is technically void under strict matrimonial law.
Accusations against the first wife and freezing of assets
Margaret accuses Victoria Fowell of having "plundered" the inheritance, treating the estate as if she were the sole beneficiary, and of having already sold two properties for approximately £600,000, without it being clear what happened to the remaining funds. Margaret obtained a freezing order to prevent the estate from disappearing before the end of the proceedings, which is intended to guarantee the possibility of enforcing any potential judgment in her favor.
A harrowing case with an uncertain outcome.
Margaret's lawyer argues that she did everything "in trust," believing that James' first marriage was over, and emphasizes the psychological and financial impact of this legal battle on his client.
Ultimately, this case, described as "unusual," illustrates how the absence of a will, bigamy, and confusion surrounding marital status can create lengthy, costly, and emotionally destructive inheritance disputes, the outcome of which will now depend on the judge's assessment of what constitutes a "reasonable provision" for the surviving partner. To be continued...
