Summary:
This case dealt with an estate of the deceased, Mrs Luce, who died with three (3) surviving children. Mrs Luce died without a will which meant that under the statutory trust provisions of the Succession Act each child was entitled to a 1/3 share of the estate. The estate was reasonable modest at approximately $1M.
The plaintiff had been estranged from his mother for a period of 19 years prior to her death, after having sided with his father in family law proceedings and had made no real efforts to rekindle the relationship with her. The daughter of the deceased (appointed as the administrator of the estate) and the other son were on good terms with the deceased when she died although all had had a difficult relationship with her at times.
The deceased visited a solicitor in 2016 to discuss making a Will and notes from the meeting were used to establish her testamentary intentions. She wished to divide her estate 3 ways between her children. The court found that the deceased may have intentionally died intestate.
The plaintiff sought additional provision from the estate claiming that he had been left without adequate provision by the deceased given his financial circumstances. This was largely due to the fact that he was the carer for his late father’s brother, Uncle Mario, and he argued he should be left sufficient funds to purchase a house large enough to accommodate himself, his partner and Uncle Mario or alternatively that he should be able to purchase a house close to the aged care facility Uncle Mario was living in.
The Court found that the deceased had no moral obligation to make provision for Uncle Mario. It also found that whilst the estrangement of 19 years didn’t preclude the plaintiff from an order further provision it was a factor to be taken into consideration.
Ultimately, the Judge considered that in all the circumstances the plaintiff had been left adequate provision given he was already entitled to a 1/3rd share of the estate. Any additional provision for him would likely need to be borne by his sister as the brother was not well off financially. The Court found that this was not appropriate having regard to the close and loving relationship the deceased had with her daughter over several years prior to her death.
The plaintiff failed and was ordered to pay the estate’s costs of and in relation to the proceedings as well as his own costs.
Key Principles:
- Estrangement does not preclude a claim for family provision;
- The deceased’s testamentary intentions will be respected, even if they deliberately died intestate;
- A deceased person is not generally obliged to provide a dwelling or means to support a third party;
- The financial circumstances of a beneficiary are not relevant in determining whether a person has been left without adequate provision.