Family torn apart over father's £2.3million inheritance row after son accuses mother of writing him out of her will The family of tycoon John Barry Wild fell out over his legacy after he died Son Ian Wild, 54, blocked his mother Susan, 79, getting her share of legacy Mrs Wild and her daughter Julia, 47, went to court to remove him as trustee Financial advisor Ian Wild, 54, was removed as a trustee of his father's estate after a family inheritance row left him facing his mother and sister across London's High Court A bid by a multi-millionaire businessman to avoid his family having to pay inheritance tax ended in court after his widow and children became involved in a bitter dispute over the legacy. When manufacturing tycoon John Barry Wild died aged 78, he left personal assets including his £2.3m business empire in the West Midlands and a country home in Warwickshire worth more than £1m. Mr Wild had set up a family trust in a bid to pass on his fortune to wife Susan, 79, son Ian, 54, daughter Julia, 47, and his six grandchildren in the most tax-efficient way. He hoped to avoid both disagreements and large tax bills with the scheme which he arranged in 2003, six years before his death in 2009. But Mr Wild's death sparked a bitter family row that ended up in London's High Court after his son became convinced his own mother was planning to cut him out of her will. Mr Justice Arnold heard that after Mr Wild's death the family home, Holywell House, near Shrewley, Warwickshire, went to his widow. The £2.3m fruits of his business empire, WJ Wild Group Ltd, went into the family trust to be split four ways between his widow, his two children, and his grandchildren by his eldest child Tim, who had predeceased him. Mrs Wild and her two children were all appointed trustees of the fund from which they were to benefit, along with the family accountant. The younger Mr Wild, a financial advisor from Worcestershire, and his sister Julia Wild, who runs a London-based marketing agency, were both paid out their quarter shares of the fund shortly after their father died. However, the court heard that a 'long-standing animosity' between the mother and her middle child exploded into a series of disagreements at trustee meetings, as Mr Wild's suspicions grew that his mother was planning to cut him out of her will. He demanded sight of the will, despite her denials, and his suspicions grew after she refused to let him see it. The court heard that the younger Mr Wild, acting 'out of 'spite and resentment' in his role as one of his father's trustees, refused to agree to his mother being paid her £500,000 cut of her late husband's money, and blocked attempts by the other trustees to hand her the cash. The tycoon's widow Susan Wild, 79, left, and their daughter Julia Wild, 47, right, outside London's High Court Oliver Hilton, for Mrs Wild and Miss Wild, asked the court to remove Mr Wild as a trustee, opening the path for his mother's share to be released. He denied Mr Wild's claims that he was refusing to release the money to his mother to protect the fund, saying: 'The real reason why Ian didn't want his mother to receive any money was because he thinks she has rewritten her will and cut him out. He therefore wants to maximise his own inheritance by getting as much out of the trust himself. He is motivated out of spite and [is] not acting in his capacity as a trustee and depriving his mother of her beneficiary right. Ian has acted in an improper, capricious and non-genuine manner out of spite and in consideration of his own interests. He is acting in a perverse fashion. This is spite and resentment for his perception that he has been cut out of his mother's will. John Wild's £1m family home in Shrewley, Warwickshire, was left to his widow, 79-year-old Susan Wild 'It seems that there has been a falling out between mother and son which has clouded Ian's judgment. How Susan might bequeath her estate has no bearing on how it should be distributed to her,' the barrister added. Anna Clarke, for Mr Wild, denied there were any improper motives behind his actions, saying he was acting merely to preserve the funds in the trust. 'Mrs Wild's personal circumstances do not warrant the payment out to her,' she added. Mr Justice Arnold, whilst making no findings of bad faith against Mr Wild, handed victory to his mother and sister last Friday, ordering that he be removed as a trustee. The judge said: 'I consider that Ian has allowed himself to become unduly influenced by his concern over Susan's will. Ian has allowed his judgment as a trustee to become clouded by matters which are not relevant to the exercise of his duties as a trustee. The proper course for this court is to remove him. The ruling means the mother's money will be immediately released to her, and the judge ordered Mr Wild to pay a £40,000 legal costs bill. Speaking outside court about the row between her brother and mother, Miss Wild said: 'There wasn't one particular thing they fell out about, it's just a general animosity. She and Ian have not been getting on for years. She added: 'The relationship between he and I has irreparably broken down too as far as I am concerned. I haven't seen his children either for at least two years.' On the subject of her mother's will, Miss Wild said: 'I hadn't heard anything about mother leaving everything to me and I don't know for sure if it's true - her will is confidential. My mother is quite capable of leaving everything to charity, but I would support her in that if she did. Miss Wild added: 'My father would have turned in his grave if he knew [what would happen]. It has all backfired.