obiter | ByLawyers News and Updates

‘To do’ list – Family provision claims – NSW

By

New precedent ‘To do’ lists have been added to the By Lawyers Family Provision Claims – Acting for the plaintiff and Acting for the estate Guides for NSW.

Many subscribers would be familiar with By Lawyers helpful ‘To do’ lists, which serve as a checklist for progress through the matter. The ‘To do’ list ensures no critical steps are missed and allows practitioners to mark-off each step and make sure they know where the matter is up to.

The new ‘To do’ lists for Family Provision claims prompts for each of the critical steps at each stage of the matter, namely:

  • Getting the matter underway – including costs disclosure
  • Settling it early – initial offers of settlement
  • The claim – preparing and filing the summons and plaintiff’s affidavit OR notice of appearance and notice to eligible persons
  • The first directions hearing
  • Mediation
  • Next directions hearing
  • Preparation for hearing
  • Hearing
  • After hearing – including advice on appeal rights.

These new precedents will assist lawyers in Family Provision claims to manage their matters, whether acting for the claimant or the estate.

101 Succession Answers – NSW

By

Following an author review new cases have been added and other enhancements made to the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Succession Answers (NSW).

Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36

This case supports the requirement of an ‘interested’ party wishing to challenge the validity of a will to show that they have rights which will be affected by the disputed grant of probate or administration.

Re Estates Brooker-Pain and Soulos [2019] NSWSC 671

Considerations regarding disclosure of documents and information in contested probate proceedings were extensively discussed. This case analysed the applicable law, practice and procedure in the context of applications to set aside subpoenas and notices to produce which called for documents relating to the making of the disputed wills. This included solicitors’ notes and files. The interplay between subpoenas, the court’s Practice Note SC Eq 11 and case management orders was examined in detail.

The court addressed the determination of ‘legitimate forensic purpose’ in such cases, especially where pleadings had not closed and the issues in dispute were uncertain. This decision has therefore been added to the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Subpoena Answers too.

The court also commented on the practice of sending ‘Larke v Nugus’ letters to ‘…a person involved in the preparation or execution of a will…[seeking] disclosures about the circumstances in which a will was prepared or executed’.

Application of NSW Trustee & Guardian; Estate of Dudley Keith Vaughn [2019] NSWSC 850 and In the Estate of Hansie Hart [2019] ACTSC 317

These two recent cases each dealt with issues relating to the presumption of death.

Gregory Joseph Mills as trustee v Julie Elizabeth Mills and Ors [2018] NSWSC 363

This case is instructive as to the considerations the court applies when giving judicial advice and determining construction issues on testamentary trusts.

Finnegan & Anor v Garner & Ors [2019] QSC 100

Here the estate faced claims which, if they were resolved by litigation would result in the estate being consumed by legal costs. The court noted, at [10], that:

It is the duty of trustees of the estate not to embark upon expensive litigation which will have the effect of depleting the estate. In Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand Gummow ACJ, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ said that: “a trustee who is sued should take no step in defence of the suit without first obtaining judicial advice about whether it is proper to defend the proceedings.”

Koellner v Spicer [2019] NSWSC 1571

On a family provision claim, an adult child with a medical condition and meagre financial resources was awarded a 35% legacy from the reasonably small estate even though the deceased had expressly excluded him on the basis they had no relationship.

Grant v Roberts; Smith v Smith; Roberts v Smith; Curtis v Smith [2019] NSWSC 843

The court emphasised, including by reference to the ‘overriding principles’ of the Civil Procedure Act, the duty on parties to contain costs in family provision litigation. The court heavily criticised disproportionate costs being incurred.

 

Like all By Lawyers Reference Materials, 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is updated regularly to cover developments in case law and procedure.

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.

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.

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.

Fees Update – Supreme Court Probate Office – VIC

By

New probate filing fees

On 30 September 2018 the Supreme Court (Fees) Regulations 2018 introduces new filing fees for the Supreme Court of Victoria’s probate office.

The By Lawyers Victorian Estates Guide have been updated to reflect these changes.

NSW – Estates – Can a beneficiary be evicted?

By

In the recent case of Kennedy v Kennedy [2018] NSWSC 1087 Davies J struck out a defence and granted liberty for the executors to obtain default judgement and issue a writ of possession where one of five adult beneficiaries had been residing in the deceased’s house for about two years since the date of death, despite being requested by the executors to vacate. His Honour observed that:

[7] In my opinion the defences filed by the defendant do not disclose any defence to the claim by the executors. Where there is no lease in place, except if a claim was made in the nature of some form of constructive trust, it is doubtful if there could be any defence to the right of the executors to get in all of the estate property including by obtaining possession of the land.

It is the duty of the executor or administrator to get in the estate. If necessary the executor or administrator can apply to the court for a declaration and/or a writ of possession.

This applies where a beneficiary is in occupation of real property owned by the estate without permission and refuses to vacate.

This case has been added to the Estates chapter of By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW).

ACT – Estates – New commentary

By

Our ACT Estates publications have been enhanced to include new bespoke precedents – Costs agreement – Probate and Costs agreement – Letters of Administration, which can be found in folder A. Getting the matter underway in each of the respective publications.

These estate specific costs agreements are customised to suit an estate matter:

  • listing the work typically carried out;
  • listing fees and expenses typically incurred;
  • detailing for handy reference in a schedule the Supreme Court filing fees;
  • also providing in a schedule the solicitor administration costs that may be applicable.

With so much less work required these custom costs agreements will save you time on every estates matter.

The commentary in both Probate and Letters of Administration on distribution of the estate has also been enhanced to include a new section When can an executor safely distribute? covering the procedural requirements in the ACT to ensure the executor or administrator is protected.

Connect with us