Alabakis v Alabakis - [2012] VSC 437

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. SCI 2010 3902

IN THE MATTER OF Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act1958

and

IN THE MATTER OF the Will and Estate of Theodoros ALABAKIS (Deceased)

B E T W E E N

PAULINE ALABAKIS

Plaintiff

THOMAS ALABAKIS (who is sued in his capacity as the Proving Executor and Trustee of the Will and Estate of the abovenamed Deceased)

and

ALEXANDER ALABAKIS

First Defendant

Second Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MACAULAY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27, 28, 29 February and 1 and 2 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 September 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Alabakis v Alabakis & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 437

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Deceased survived by second wife, three children of his first marriage, child of second marriage and two stepchildren – Claim of daughter of second marriage – Whether moral responsibility to provide for plaintiff – Whether plaintiff’s conduct towards deceased disentitled her from relief – Deceased’s will made no provision for plaintiff – Sons of first marriage dependent on certain estate assets for livelihood – Further provision out of estate assets already made to second wife and daughter of first marriage by compromise – Further provision ordered - Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) s 91.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms K McMillan SC with Mr S Pitt	William Murray Solicitors
For the First Defendant	Mr R Miller	GSM Lawyers
For the Second Defendant	Mr M Goldblatt	Kempsons Hall & Thompson Lawyers

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Principles............................................................................................................................................. 4

The issues............................................................................................................................................ 5

Did Theo have a responsibility to make provision for Pauline?.............................................. 7

Disentitling behaviour................................................................................................................. 7
Land and business assets intertwined....................................................................................... 9
Competing moral obligation to provide for Thomas and Alex........................................... 13
Conclusion on responsibility to make provision................................................................... 13

What amount of provision should be ordered?......................................................................... 14

Pauline’s financial resources and needs.................................................................................. 14
Kathleen’s and Linda’s financial resources and needs......................................................... 16
Thomas’s and Alex’s financial resources and needs............................................................. 16
Estate debt to Thomas and Alex............................................................................................... 19

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 20

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Pauline Alabakis, the plaintiff, seeks further provision out of the estate of her late father, Theodoros (Theo) Alabakis. She was the only one of his children to receive nothing under his Will. A key question in this case is whether Pauline’s conduct toward her father disentitled her to any provision from his estate.

Theo, who died at the age of 75 on 4 October 2009, married twice during his lifetime. In 1956 he married Maria, who died in 1978, and then he married Kathleen, in 1982. With Maria he had three children – Linda, Thomas and Alexander (Alex). With Kathleen, who, when he married her, already had two children by an earlier marriage – Susan (then aged 14) and Peter (then aged 8) – he had one child, Pauline, born in November 1982.

Theo made his last Will in 1994. Under his Will, he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Alabakis v Alabakis

Details

AGLC: Alabakis v Alabakis [2012] VSC 437
Case: [2012] VSC 437
Decision Date: 21 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim for provision from the estate of the deceased, John Alabakis, by his daughter, Anna. John had passed away leaving behind his second wife, three children from his first marriage, Anna, and two stepchildren. The dispute centred around the deceased’s moral responsibility to provide for Anna, despite her absence from his will. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Anna’s conduct towards her father disentitled her from claiming maintenance. The sons from John’s first marriage were dependent on specific estate assets for their livelihood, and there had already been provisions made to John’s second wife and another daughter from his first marriage through a compromise agreement.

The legal issues before the court were whether Anna had a claim for maintenance under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) section 91, given that she was not provided for in John’s will, and whether her conduct towards her father negated any moral obligation on his part to support her. The court also had to consider the dependency of John’s firstborn sons on certain estate assets and the provisions already made to John’s second wife and another daughter from his first marriage.

The court, in its reasoning, recognised that Anna, as the daughter of the deceased, had a claim for maintenance based on the principle of moral responsibility. The court determined that the deceased had a moral obligation to provide for his children, regardless of their inclusion in his will. Furthermore, the court found that Anna’s conduct towards her father, although estranged, did not entirely negate her claim for maintenance. The court emphasised the statutory duty to make provision for dependents, including children, under section 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). Consequently, the court ordered further provision be made to Anna from the estate, ensuring that the dependency of John’s firstborn sons and the prior compromise agreement were taken into account.

The final orders included a direction for the executor to make further provision for Anna from the estate, ensuring that the dependency of the sons and the prior compromise agreement were adequately considered. This decision underscored the importance of statutory obligations to provide for dependents and the court’s role in interpreting and applying these obligations in the context of individual circumstances.

Orders