ByLawyers News and Updates

Testamentary capacity – NSW

by

A recent Court of Appeal decision on testamentary capacity has been added to the By Lawyers publication 101 Succession Answers (NSW).

In Drivas v Jakopovic [2019] NSWCA 218 the Court of Appeal upheld a first instance decision which had given substantial weight to the evidence of the attending solicitor over the retrospective evidence of medical experts based on the deceased’s medical records.

The case is notable because the solicitor had no specific recollection, nor any notes, of the interaction with the client. However the will was time-stamped to show it had been prepared over the course of 1.5 hours spent with the client. The solicitor was very experienced in preparing wills and dealing with elderly clients, including assessing their testamentary capacity. The solicitor gave evidence as to his usual practice when taking instructions, including his understanding of the legal tests for capacity laid down in Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the fist instance judge that the evidence of the solicitor – which suggested there was no issue with the will maker’s capacity – was preferable to the evidence of doctors who had considered the deceased’s medical records and made a retrospective assessment that she lacked capacity.

This case highlights the importance of the role of the attending solicitor in assessing testamentary capacity. However it is specific to its facts and reliance upon ‘usual practice’ as evidence of capacity is not ideal. The prudent course, as noted both under Capacity in 101 Succession Answers and in the commentary in the By Lawyers Wills guide, is for the attending lawyer to ensure that comprehensive notes are taken. The notes should include specific reference to the legal tests in Banks v Goodfellow. Where capacity may be in issue, a statement from the testator’s GP or treating doctor as to their capacity, addressing the tests in Banks v Goodfellow, is also likely to be valuable evidence to protect against any later challenge to the will maker’s capacity.

101 Succession Answers (NSW) is available in the reference materials folder in the NSW Wills, Estates, Powers of Attorney, Appointment of Enduring Guardian and Family Provision guides.

Powers of Attorney – All states

by

The By Lawyers Powers of Attorney Guides have been updated. Amendments address the issue of attorneys who require access to the principal’s will to enable them to make informed decisions.

Generally, attorneys are not entitled to access their principal’s will. However, in some cases it is important that the attorney reviews the principal’s will, to ensure the attorney acts in accordance with the best interests and the wishes of the principal.

For example, the attorney may need to sell one of the principal’s assets to fund medical care of the principal. By reviewing the principal’s will, the attorney can learn that a particular asset has been specifically bequeathed. The attorney may therefore decide not to sell the bequeathed asset and instead sell an asset that will form part of the residue of the principal’s estate.

The following changes have been made to the Powers of Attorney publications in each state:

  1. New sections of Commentary discussing the issue;
  2. A new question in the Retainer Instructions to prompt consideration of the issue; and
  3. A new precedent clause Access to will has been added in the Library of Clauses for Power of Attorney.

Family provision claims – SA

by

The new By Lawyers Family Provision claims – SA Guide has received its first update. A recent Supreme Court case on joinder has been added.

A solicitor might receive instructions from a potential claimant after the client receives notice, as a person with an interest in the estate, from another claimant who has already commenced proceedings. Plaintiffs in Family Provision claims are required under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 to serve other potential claimants with the proceedings.

Those potential claimants may then make an interlocutory application within 28 days of service, seeking to be joined as a plaintiff under s 8(7) of the Act. That section provides that the court may, ‘if satisfied that it is just and expedient to do so’, permit joinder of further claimants at any time prior to the final determination of the proceedings.

The recent Supreme Court case of Columbus v Efstathis & Ors [2019] SASC 149 makes it clear that in considering such an application, the court will in effect need to be satisfied that the applicant has reasonable prospects of success.

In that case the court found there was no reasonable prospect of the applicant, a grandchild of the deceased, establishing any moral obligation on the part of the deceased to have made provision for the applicant out of the estate. Leave for the applicant to be joined as a claimant was therefore refused.

In the course of its determination, the court reviewed the case law on the status of grandchildren with Family Provision claims, affirming the NSW Supreme Court decision of Bowditch v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2012] NSWSC 275 in finding that ‘as a general rule a grandparent does not have a responsibility to make provision for a grandchild in his or her testamentary disposition’.

This useful case has been added to the Family Provision claims – SA Commentary on page 25 under Acting for a potential claimant.

Testamentary capacity

by

Testamentary capacity was considered in a recent Victorian Supreme Court case.

The court found In the Matter of the Will and Estate of Joyce Helen Greer, deceased [2019] VSC 592 that the then 95-year-old testator had capacity. Her will in which she made no provision for one of her two adult sons was admitted to probate.

Of importance in the court’s decision was evidence from the lawyer who took the instructions and drew the will. This was not the testator’s usual solicitor. Her long-term solicitor, one of the executors of the will, had referred the testator to another solicitor, a specialist in wills. He had taken comprehensive instructions and made appropriate notes. He also sought a medical report from the testator’s usual doctor.

The evidence of the testator’s doctor impressed the court and it was preferred to evidence from expert medical practitioners led by both parties. The experts gave opinions based on records, but had not seen the testator.

One of the experts noted a ‘…general consensus amongst experts that capacity is task specific and that individuals with cognitive impairment may retain capacity to do many tasks. Even if [the testator] had been suffering from a degree of executive impairment affecting, for example, her ability to regulate her behavior in a social setting, it did not necessarily follow that she lacked testamentary capacity‘. That is an important point for solicitors taking instructions from will makers to bear in mind.

The case includes, at [126] – [133], an analysis of the cases on proof of testamentary capacity. The court noted that ‘The proof required to establish testamentary capacity does not need to eliminate all doubt and a residual ‘doubt’ does not necessarily exclude the existence of testamentary capacity‘.

The statement of Kirby P in Re Griffith (1995) 217 ALR 284, 294 that the freedom of testation includes the freedom to be ‘unfair, unwise or harsh with one’s own property’ was also cited with approval.

This useful case on testamentary capacity has been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) publication. This valuable resource is found in the Reference Materials folder in the Wills, Estates, Family Provision Claims, and Powers of Attorney, Appointment of Enduring Guardian and Advance Care Planning guides.

New guide – Family Provision Claims – SA

by

South Australian subscribers are invited to explore By Lawyers new publication, Family Provision Claims (SA).

This practical guide contains matter plans, commentaries and precedents for Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant.

Precedents in Acting for the Plaintiff guide include:

  • Retainer instructions;
  • Letter to client with initial advice;
  • Initial letter to estate or their solicitor;
  • Deed of settlement;
  • Deeds of family arrangement;
  • Brief to counsel;
  • Initiating application;
  • Affidavit in support;
  • Outline of submissions;
  • Example court book index;
  • Letter to plaintiff finalising the matter.

Precedents in Acting for the Defendant guide include:

  • Retainer instructions;
  • Letter to estate with initial advice;
  • Letter to claimant’s solicitor in response to their initial letter;
  • Letter reporting to estate on settlement;
  • Rule 315 affidavit of executor or administrator;
  • Defendant’s position paper for mediation;
  • Example formal offer;
  • Letter to defendant finalising the matter.

The commentaries in both Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant include:

  • Overview and time limits;
  • Managing the lawyer-client relationship and client identification;
  • Time and costs estimates;
  • Taking instructions and advising on the claim;
  • Assessing the merits of a claim;
  • When the court can make an order;
  • Assessing and calculating adequate provision;
  • Considering competing interests;
  • When to negotiate and tips for effective negotiation;
  • Mediation;
  • Commencing the claim
  • The first directions hearing date;
  • Costs and the supervisory approach taken by the court to costs;
  • The procedure following an order.

The By Lawyers South Australian Family Provision Claims publication is a comprehensive and practical resource for practitioners who are advising and representing either claimants or estates.

Suspicious circumstances – Wills – All states

by

Suspicious circumstances surrounding the drafting and execution of a will were considered in a recent NSW Court of Appeal case.

The validity of a will can be challenged by those who have standing. These include the people who are affected by it or a previous will. They may suspect the testator lacked the capacity to make the will, or that it was executed under duress, or other suspicious circumstances.

Where a will is executed under apparently suspicious circumstances the onus of proving that nothing untoward occurred is borne by the person propounding the will. Probate will not be granted unless the propounder allays those suspicions.

In Mekhail v Hana; Mekhail v Hana [2019] NSWCA 197 at [147] the Court of Appeal considered the onus had not been discharged, despite the primary judge having granted probate of the will.

The suspicious circumstances in that case included the instructions for the will and a power of attorney having not come from the testator/principal, an unexplained variation of the instructions, the description of the executor/beneficiary as the testator’s ‘daughter’ when they were in fact unrelated, the unwarranted urgency and the subsequent transfer of the testator/principal’s residential property to the attorney for nominal consideration. The case was also complicated by the attending solicitor’s decision to destroy an original file note and create a more detailed version some months later, after having also acted for the attorney regarding the transfer of the property.

The mechanical treatment of the suspicious circumstances doctrine by the first instance judge in this case led the Court of Appeal to suggest ‘a preferred approach’ at [164]-[173], although the court observed that the limits of the doctrine ‘can scarcely be regarded as settled’.

Practitioners should take care to observe and inquire about any apparently suspicious circumstances surrounding the instructions for and the execution of wills and other personal documents. Properly identifying the client is a basic precaution, but enquiring about relationships and motivations may also be warranted. Confirming instructions with the client in the absence of those who might benefit from the documents is also prudent. Clear, accurate, detailed and contemporaneous file notes are always advisable.

This interesting case has been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) publication.

Condition and finding – All states

by

A new precedent with example content has been added to all By Lawyers Estates guides. The example content is for an affidavit regarding the condition and finding of a will.

Such an affidavit may be required to satisfy the court as to any issues surrounding the condition an original will is in, or the circumstances by which it was found. This affidavit may be lodged either with an application or in response to a requisition when applying for a grant of probate, or a grant of letters with the will annexed.

This new precedent provides extensive example wording addressing the issues of the will’s condition and finding. The content encompasses evidence to be given by an employee of the firm, the executor, a subscribing witness, or another person who has knowledge of how, for example, marks upon the will are not an indication of revocation.

As with all By Lawyers ‘example content’ precedents, the relevant form can be found immediately above the new precedent on the matter plan. The example content can be modified as required and pasted into the appropriate place in the form.

Homemade wills – NSW

by

The Supreme Court of NSW recently considered homemade wills in Jones v Robinson & Ors [2019] NSWSC 932.

Particularly in question was the appropriate interpretation where ambiguity existed in the document.

The Court affirmed the ‘well accepted’ principles from Justice Isaacs in Fell v Fell (1922) 31 CLR 268 on the construction of wills and further noted that:

‘With any homemade will the language used will often be informal, but the plain meaning of words should not be ignored. Moreover the instrument has to be viewed as a whole. Inaccuracies or inconsistencies should be looked at so as to best preserve a testator’s intention and that approach should be a predominant consideration in the construction of the instrument’.

In determining that the testator’s failure to deal with the residuary of her estate did not create an intestacy, the Court stated that ‘The mere fact that the creator of a homemade will did not contemplate every legal contingency or the potential of residue does no more than highlight that the maker is not a lawyer’.

Of course the mere fact that ambiguity existed and an expensive court case was required to resolve it, tends to support the value of wills drafted by lawyers over homemade wills. The By Lawyers Wills publication contains carefully drafted wills precedents, a library of additional clauses and practical commentary written by experienced lawyers, to assist practitioners who are preparing wills for their clients. The By Lawyers Wills publication also includes the By Lawyers Reference Guide 101 Succession Answers – to which Jones v Robinson has now been added.

Family Provision – Widows claims – NSW

by

New commentary, including an entry specific to Widows claims, has been added to the Family Provision section of the By Lawyers Reference Guide 101 Succession Answers.

Case note

These enhancements reflect the recent Court of Appeal decision in Steinmetz v Shannon 2019 NSWCA 114. In that case, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision of a single judge where the court had refused to make further provision for the widow of a testator. The deceased left the bulk of his $6,650,000 estate to the adult children of his first marriage. The will gave the widow only an annuity of $52,000. The couple had been together for 28 years.

The Court of Appeal found that leaving a 65-year-old widow, who is capable of managing her own affairs, reliant for the rest of her life on quarterly payments by the children of her deceased husband’s first marriage, with one of whom there had been historical tensions, rather than placing her in control of her own resources, was not an appropriate form of provision. Instead, the Court of Appeal ordered that the widow receive a legacy of $1,750,000, in addition to the annuity.

The judgment includes a detailed analysis of the leading cases on widows claims. Additionally, it considers how the court should balance the competing imperatives of the deceased’s testamentary freedom and the legislative requirements for provision to be made for eligible persons. In considering the applicant’s need for maintenance, education and advancement, the Court of Appeal also acknowledged the relevance of the non-financial needs of the applicant, such as her desire to relocate to a bigger town for better access to medical care.

Publication update

The new section in 101 Succession Answers discusses this Court of Appeal decision and widows claims generally. There have also been related and incidental enhancements made to other sections of the publication. The interactive alphabetical contents list has been updated accordingly to maintain the easy access to content which is the hallmark of all By Lawyers reference guides.

Reference materials

101 Succession Answers covers Powers of Attorney, Appointments of Enduring Guardian, Wills, Estates and Family Provision. This valuable By Lawyers reference guide is located in the Reference Materials folder on the matter plan in each of those publications.

Wills commentary – VIC

by

The By Lawyers Wills commentary in our Victorian Wills publication  has been updated with the following recent cases:

The discussion of costs in the commentary has also been updated in line with The Practitioner Remuneration Order, revised as at 1 January 2019.

The Land Tax section in the commentary has also been updated with regard to:-

  • Administration may be deemed by SRO to have been completed in many circumstances even where the land has not been distributed/transferred to beneficiaries – LTX Trust Form 18 Deceased estate – which relates to both commencement and completion of administration
  • All transferees of residential property in Victoria must complete a Digital Duties Online form purchaser statement.

We are grateful for the assistance of Roz Curnow, our learned Victorian Wills & Estates author, with these commentary updates.

Connect with us