Family of 70s music star locked in £1m inheritance battle after he cut wife OUT of will and gave everything to daughters

THE family of a 70s music star are in a £1 million inheritance battle after he cut his wife out of the will and gave his daughter everything.

Freddy Wieland died six years ago, aged 75, leaving behind his ex-wife Karen and their daughter Amber.

After battling cancer, the guitarist behind the Seventies one-hit wonder The Pushbike Song, left everything to his two daughters from a previous relationship.

Jasmine and Jade Wieland were named as the main beneficiaries, sowing the seeds of an inheritance battle as the two branches of his family battle it out in court for possession of his estate.

Formerly a guitarist with Aussie band The Strangers, Freddy went on to be a member of The Mixtures.

It was this group that led him to scoring international success with a number one hit in Australia and New Zealand.

The song even reached Number 3 in Ireland and 2 in the UK.

Back in the Seventies, Aussie stations refused to play music released by major labels leading their cover of Mungo Jerry's In the Summertime to reach Number one.

They were quick to follow this up with a Pushbike Song which also gained traction, achieving Number 2 on the UK charts.

Recounting a trip around town on a pushbike, the video for the song even features the band members on their bikes.

Finally settling in the UK, Freddy's stardom fizzled after the Number 2 hit in 1971 although he later featured as a mystery guest on the BBC's Never Mind the Buzzocks in 2002.

With his wife Karen Wieland, 64, the pair bought a buy-to-let property empire in Buckinghamshire which his now worth more than £1 million.

Judge Nigel Gerals heard how the couple met in 1992 and tied the knot four years later after having their daughter Amber.

Freddy had two daughters from a previous relationship.

Jasmine, a Spain-based entrepreneur in an arts company and Jade, who runs a beauty company in Sydney, Australia.

The couple separated in 2013, reconciling briefly when he first became ill, before finally splitting up and beginning divorce proceedings soon afterwards, with Freddy moving full-time to Spain.

He died in 2018, a year after their decree nisi was pronounced, but before a decree absolute was sealed, with his final will leaving everything to Jasmine and Jade, and appointing Jasmine as administrator of his estate.

Karen and Jasmine are now fighting two court battles, with Karen suing for “reasonable provision” - a fair share of her ex-husband’s fortune - under the Inheritance Act 1975.

Jasmine for her part is fighting for a half share of the former couple's £1 million property portfolio to go into her late dad's estate, whilst Karen claims it is all hers.

Karen's barrister, George Woodhead told the court: “Karen’s case is that when she and the deceased decided to divorce, they entered into a written agreement in respect of the properties and the ownership of them.

“Karen claims that, as part of an agreement following the separation, Freddy had agreed that she would have his beneficial interest in the properties for a payment of £50,000.”

He said that the deal was part of an agreement splitting all their wealth and Karen, as a former letting agent herself, had sourced, managed and rented out the properties, which had been purchased for her future benefit.

“Her case is that whilst she was working as a letting agent in 2002, she decided it would be sensible to provide for her retirement by acquiring buy to let properties,” he said.

“She ultimately purchased all 11 of the properties, and did so in joint names with the deceased.

“Her case is that she and the deceased jointly intended that the properties would provide an income for her during her retirement.

“It was Karen who sourced, purchased and managed each property – and Karen was the landlady when each property was let.”

But Jasmine's barrister James Kemp argued that the agreement Karen relies on is “not valid” because Karen did not pay the full £50,000 before Freddy died.

He said the agreement had “not been carried out” and has “therefore been rescinded" while claiming Karen did not disclose all of the relevant evidence about her financial dealings at the time of the agreement.

The issue of whether Freddy still held his shares in the properties at the time of his death is set to be decided at a trial at the county court in April next year.

Karen’s claim against the estate for “reasonable provision” will only resume after that issue has been decided.