A woman whose millionaire father abandoned her as a baby and excluded her from his will has secured a £123,000 payout following a contentious legal battle against her stepmother.

Emma McDaniel’s father, Mark Talbot, left her life when she was just eight months old. Over the years, Talbot amassed a fortune through savvy property investments and flourishing businesses, yet when he drafted his final will in 2014, he deliberately excluded his daughter from any inheritance.

At the time of this decision, Talbot had not been in contact with McDaniel for two decades, opting instead to leave his entire estate to his wife, Rosemary Talbot, who is McDaniel’s stepmother.

In 2019, however, McDaniel and her father reconnected, establishing a “close” bond during the last years of his life. Tragically, despite their renewed relationship, Talbot passed away unexpectedly in October 2022 without amending his will, which left his £1.75 million estate solely to his wife, leaving McDaniel with nothing.

But five years later in 2019, Ms McDaniel and her father reconnected and developed a ‘close’ relationship in his latter years.

But despite their rekindling, he did not change his will before he died suddenly in October 2022, leaving his £1.75million estate to his wife and nothing to Ms McDaniel.

Meanwhile, 40-year-old Ms McDaniel was struggling on benefits with two disabled children and her own health problems. She sued Ms Talbot for a payout of her father’s estate at the High Court last November.

After months of deliberation, Judge Caroline Shea KC awarded Ms McDaniel £123,000 from her father’s fortune.

Emma McDaniel (pictured) was handed a £123,000 payout from her father’s estate after he abandoned her as a baby and left her out of his will

Judge Shea said Ms McDaniel needed the money, and because she had helped care for her father and his mother Barbra – her grandmother – she had a ‘moral’ claim to ‘provision’ from the estate. 

Mr Talbot had left Ms McDaniel’s mother when she was just eight months old in 1985 and he had never met his son Rhys, who was born after his departure by the same woman.

He then met Rosemary Talbot, 68, and went on to have a 36-year relationship with her and two more children.

Mr Talbot was a successful businessman, selling a courier business in 1997 and building his wealth through several property investments and a part ownership of Berkshire estate agents Cricketts.

When he died, aged 63, he had a string of rental properties and a £450,000 villa in Portugal.

For the vast majority of this time, Ms McDaniel never saw or spoke to her father, except once on the phone when she was 16.

This would change when he contacted her in 2019 and then became close for the three years leading up to his death – holidaying at his villa together, the judge was told.

Mark had made a will in May 2014, leaving everything to Rosemary and specifically excluding Ms McDaniel and Rhys, saying: ‘I DECLARE that I have NOT made any provision in my Will for my son Rhys Winstone whom I have never met nor my daughter Emma Winstone who I last saw about twenty years ago. I do not have contact with either of them.’ 

When he died suddenly in 2022, the more than eight year old will was unchanged.

But Ms McDaniel felt that this was not right because of their reconnection and so she claimed for ‘reasonable financial provision’ from the estate in court.

Her barrister Aiden O’Brien said: ‘Emma is married with two children, both of whom have a constellation of disabilities. The claimant’s husband also suffers from heart and spinal problems.

‘Unfortunately, the claimant also has her own health issues, including spinal problems, autism, ADHD, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue and burn-out.

‘The claimant lives with her family in a three-bedroom housing association property and they rely on an array of state benefits, supplemented by her modest business income.

‘Emma and her family receive a complicated cocktail of state support, including Universal Credit, PIP, Child Benefit and Disability Living Allowance.’

But Mrs Talbot fought back, telling the judge that Mr Talbot had been very clear that he did not want his children to get any of his estate when he died.

The estate also effectively served as Mrs Talbot’s ‘pension’, she said, and represented their ‘joint efforts,’ since his focus on business ‘stopped Rosemary’s earning ability’.

Mr Talbots death had hit both women hard, with Judge Shea noting that Mrs Talbot was in a ‘very low mood’, made worse by Ms McDaniel’s court claim.

Rosemary Talbot, 68, disputed Ms McDaniel’s claim for a payout, saying she relied on the inheritance as a ‘pension’ and represented ‘joint efforts’ between her and her husband

However, she rejected Rosemary’s suggestion that the reconciled relationship between Mr Talbot and Ms McDaniel was more akin to a friendship than a father and daughter.

‘It is true that the relationship was short, but both Mark and Emma were conducting themselves in accordance with an expectation that it would continue into the future,’ she said.

Judge Shea ruled that it was ‘unreasonable that the effective provisions governing Mark’s estate did not make provision for Emma’s maintenance.’

She noted Ms McDaniel’s ‘parlous’ and ‘severely restricted’ means to provide for herself and her family above ‘little – if any – more than subsistence’.

She said that to facilitate Ms McDaniel’s claim, there needed to be a ‘special circumstance’, as simply being Mr Talbot’s child was not enough.

To the Judge, ‘that special circumstance lies in Emma’s caring contributions, extending not only to her own children but to Mark and – both before and after the reunion, and since Mark’s death – his mother, Barbara.’

Their rekindled relationship had led Ms McDaniel to become a ‘significant part’ of Mr Talbot’s life and ‘showed ever sign of continuing’. 

The Judge added: ‘I also bear in mind that Rosemary is both well provided for by Mark’s estate and a woman of considerable wealth in her own right, as a result of the hard work which she and Mark each put into creating their family and business, and the decisions Mark took to ensure that she would be well provided for into her old age, avoiding resorting to pensions products, of which he was suspicious.

‘I consider that it will be possible to make an order favouring Emma without compromising Rosemary’s standard of living, and that an award to Emma will not deprive Rosemary of the bulk of the inheritance she stands to receive.’

She awarded Emma a payout from the estate totalling £123,418.