ByLawyers News and Updates

Removal of an executor – VIC

by

New precedents for the removal of an executor have been added to the Probate and Letters of Administration matter plans.

In Victoria, an application can be made to the Supreme Court for the removal of an executor under s 34(1)(c) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

The court can remove the executor if, following an examination of the facts including a significant weighting to the testator’s intention to appoint the executor, the court is satisfied there is:

  • undue delay in the administration of the estate; or
  • a conflict of interest; or
  • an unworkable relationship between co-executors;

that would lead to significant mischief or harm to the beneficiaries’ interests.

In Connock v Connock (in His Capacity as Executor of the Estate of Connock) [2021] VSC 64 the plaintiff was the widow of the deceased. Both had previously been married and had children from these marriages. The plaintiff’s interest in the estate was limited to the assets of the deceased’s superannuation fund and proceeds from various bank accounts. The deceased’s will made no provision for the widow to take an interest in the residue of the estate.

The executor, the deceased’s child of the first marriage, commenced estoppel proceedings seeking a declaration that the plaintiff held the estate assets for her benefit and maintenance during her lifetime, but, on her death, for the benefit equally of the deceased’s children – one of whom was the executor.

The plaintiff claimed and the court accepted that the executor had a conflict of interest between the executor’s duties and his personal interest in the outcome of the estoppel proceeding, but that this conflict did not warrant the removal of the executor. The court held that, although the executor is in a position of conflict, in the circumstances the welfare of the beneficiaries of the estate did not warrant his removal.

The new form content precedents added to the Probate and Letters of Administration publications are:

  • Originating motion to remove and replace executor;
  • Originating motion to remove and replace trustee;
  • Originating motion to remove and replace executor and trustee.

Statutory legacy – WA

by

The statutory legacy for intestacy in Western Australia has increased significantly.

Intestacy occurs when a will does not distribute a deceased estate effectively. The statutory legacy is the amount the deceased’s surviving relatives are entitled to on intestacy under the Administration Act 1903. However, since it was last amended in 1982, Western Australia had the lowest statutory legacy in Australia with the deceased’s surviving partner entitled to:

  • the deceased’s household chattels;
  • the first $50,000 of the intestate estate; and
  • an additional one-third of the balance of the intestate estate.

Where the deceased had children, they were entitled to an equal share of the remaining two-thirds of the balance of the intestate estate.

Where the deceased left a surviving partner but no children, the partner was entitled to $75,000.

If real property was not transferred to the deceased’s partner via survivorship, the statutory legacy could be insufficient for their maintenance.  This often led to a negotiated financial arrangement with their children or proceedings under the Family Provision Act 1972.

From 29 March 2022, with the commencement of the Administration Amendment Bill 2021 (WA), the surviving partner is entitled to:

  • the deceased’s household chattels;
  • the first $435,000 of the intestate estate; and
  • an additional one-third of the balance of the intestate estate.

The deceased’s children are still entitled to an equal share of the remaining two-thirds of the balance of the intestate estate.

Where the deceased left a surviving partner but no children, the partner is now entitled to $705,000

Under the existing scheme, the parental statutory legacy where the deceased is survived by parents, siblings, and nieces and nephews but is not survived by a partner or children, was $6,000. It has been increased to $56,500.

A formula has been added to the Act requiring the amount of these statutory legacies be reviewed every two years.

The commentary in the By Lawyers WA Letters of administration publication has been updated accordingly.

Special grants of probate – NSW

by

A recent Supreme Court case on special grants of probate has been added to 101 Succession Answers NSW. Application of Penhall and Dutton; Estate of the late Kylie Anne Dutton [2021] NSWSC 79 relates to an application for special administration ad colligenda bona defuncti, whereby a grant is obtained to protect the estate.

In this case the deceased’s home was unoccupied for 6 months with no insurance cover, which presented a real risk of diminishing the value of the estate. The Court granted the application to allow the property to be sold and the proceeds placed in an interest bearing account. The Court noted this was an interim measure and a full grant was still required to distribute the estate.

The By Lawyers Probate and Letters and Administration commentaries and 101 Succession Answers all deal with special grants. These apply when there is no one able to seek a grant and there are special needs for the estate. The special grants include:

  • Administration de bonis non administrates cum testamento annexo – administrator dies before completing the administration of will;
  • Administration de bonis non administrates – administrator dies before completing the administration of intestacy;
  • Administration for the purposes of the family provisions claim under s 91 of the Succession Act 2006 – also covered in the By Lawyers Family provision claims guide;
  • Administration pendente lite – s 73 Administration during litigation;
  • Administration ad litem to commence or defend proceedings;
  • Administration by a manager appointed by the Guardianship Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal for a person lacking mental capacity;
  • Administration during minority;
  • Application by a guardian;
  • Administration durante absentia – executor or administrator outside NSW grant to an attorney – s 72;
  • Application under s 76 if executor or administrator out of jurisdiction special administrator may be appointed;
  • Administration when the sole beneficiary/executor/administrator suffers from a disability, he can nominate another; and
  • Grant to a creditor.

The 101 Succession Answers publication can be found in the Reference materials folder at the top of the matter plans in all By Lawyers succession-related guides – Wills, Powers of Attorney, Appointments of enduring guardian and Family provision claims.

Estates cases – VIC

by

New estate cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (VIC) reference manual.

The new cases under the Estates section of the publication relate to:

Vesting of interest in beneficiaries – Rule in Saunders v Vautier

A beneficiary can apply to the court to have their interest vest earlier than provided for in the will. The rule in Saunders v Vautier possibly provides such a mechanism.

The High Court set out the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 at [47]:

Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or a number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation.

If the beneficiaries are ascertained, have capacity and all consent then ‘they may put an end to the trust by directing the trustee to transfer the interest in the estate to themselves, notwithstanding any direction to the contrary in the trust instrument’: Krstic v State Trustees Ltd [2012] VSC 344 at [15].

For a case where the rule was not upheld due to the beneficial interest being classed as contingent, see Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385. This case also suggests that a gift over clause may defeat application of the rule.

Accordingly, whether there is any reason for the executor to resist the application would depend upon there being any terms of the will that might support such a position. If the executor is in any doubt then the trustee can and should seek judicial advice.

The addition of these new estate cases to 101 Succession Answers (VIC) is part of our continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Estate cases – QLD

by

New estate cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (QLD) reference manual.

The new cases under the Estates section of the publication relate to:

Vesting of interest in beneficiaries – Rule in Saunders v Vautier

A beneficiary can apply to the court to have their interest vest earlier than provided for in the will. The rule in Saunders v Vautier possibly provides such a mechanism.

The High Court set out the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 at [47]:

Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or a number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation.

In Re Tracey [2016] QCA 194 the Court of Appeal at [10] stated that:

The context of that reference makes it clear that the rule may be invoked only by a beneficiary who is sui juris. The expression sui juris connotes in law “a person who can validly contract and bind himself by legal obligation uncontrolled by another person”.

For a case where the rule was not upheld due to the beneficial interest being classed as contingent, see Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385. This case also suggests that a gift over clause may defeat application of the rule.

Accordingly, whether there is any reason for the executor to resist the application would depend upon there being any terms of the will that might support such a position. If the executor is in any doubt then the trustee can and should seek judicial advice.

The addition of these new estate cases to 101 Succession Answers (QLD) is part of our continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

Estates cases – NSW

by

New estates cases have been added to By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) reference manual.

The new cases under the Estates section of the publication relate to:

Additional assets after grant

The administrator’s obligation to disclose is a continuous one. Any assets not disclosed in the initial affidavit must be disclosed to the court by way of further affidavit: r 78.91 Supreme Court Rules 1970. If an asset has come to light after the grant has been finalised, an Affidavit of Additional Assets needs to be filed.

If an updated copy of the grant is required, an Application for Exemplification also needs to be filed. An exemplification is a certified and sealed copy of a grant. The Inventory of Property does not need to be amended.

The Affidavit of Additional Assets and the Application for Exemplification are available in the By Lawyers Estates guide, on the Probate and Letters of Administration matter plans.

Vesting of interest in beneficiaries

A beneficiary can apply to the court to have their interest vest earlier than provided for in the will under the rule in Saunders v Vautier.

The High Court set out the modern formulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier in CPT Custodian Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue [2005] HCA 53 at [47]:

Under the rule in Saunders v Vautier, an adult beneficiary (or a number of adult beneficiaries acting together) who has (or between them have) an absolute, vested and indefeasible interest in the capital and income of property may at any time require the transfer of the property to him (or them) and may terminate any accumulation.

In Beck v Henley [2014] NSWCA 201 the Court of appeal at [35] stated that:

Adult beneficiaries who are absolutely and indefeasibly entitled have power to “overbear and defeat the intention of a testator or settlor to subject property to the continuing trusts, powers and limitations of a will or trust instrument”.

A case where the rule was not upheld has been added –  Arnott v Kiss [2014] NSWSC 1385.

The addition of these new estates cases to 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – QLD

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (QLD) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provision claims sections of the publication.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/ trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (QLD) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – VIC

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (VIC) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provisions claims sections of the publication.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (VIC) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – NSW

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provision claims sections of the publication.

Proof of death by inference

The Estate of Alan Bruce Beeby [2020] NSWSC 1512 concerned proof of death by inference. A court may declare a missing person dead, without a death certificate and before the seven-year period relating to the presumption of death is met. At [53] Hallen J explained:

…an inferred death is one where, although a body is not found or recovered, the death can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, and where it can be inferred that it is more probable that the person has died, rather than that he, or she, is living.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

Intermeddling by executors

The Victorian case of Re Abat [2020] VSC 560 contains a discussion of when intermeddling in an estate might deprive an executor of the right to renounce. It should be read in conjunction with the NSW case of Mulray v Ogilvie [1987] 9 NSWLR 1 which is already in 101 Succession Answers.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

RedCrest-Probate – VIC

by

From 1 July 2020 all applications for grants of probate and letters of administration must be filed in RedCrest-Probate, which is the Supreme Court’s online filing system.

The documents required for a grant can be completed and uploaded as PDFs into RedCrest-Probate. Alternately they can be completed using the guided questions in the system.

The original will, or any other document upon which the application for a grant is based, must still be physically filed, or posted to the Court.

In a move to make the new process as electronic as possible, the original grant is the electronic copy issued by the court. Asset holders can view the original grant through RedCrest-Probate using a unique identifier and the application number appearing on the grant.

The By Lawyers Probate and Letters of Administration guides have been updated accordingly.

Connect with us