Borham v Montague

Case [2006] NSWSC 1289


CITATION: Borham v Montague [2006] NSWSC 1289
HEARING DATE(S): 27/11/06, 28/11/06
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 

28 November 2006
JURISDICTION: Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Macready at 1
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 11/28/2006
CATCHWORDS: Family Provision. Application by second wife. Provision for maintenance granted. Provision of fee simple in residence refused.
PARTIES: Mavis Olive Borham v William Errol Montague (Estate of Frank Anthony Borham & anor)
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6478/2004
COUNSEL: Mr R Wilkinson for plaintiff
Miss S Norton SC and Miss A Healey for defendant
SOLICITORS: Harris Wheeler for plaintiff
Stacks Taree for defendant
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Compensation Court

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

TUESDAY 28 NOVEMBER 2006

6478/04 - MAVIS OLIVE BORHAM v WILLIAM ERROL MONTAGUE - ESTATE OF FRANK ANTHONY BORHAM and ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application under the Family Provision Act in respect of the estate of the late Frank Anthony Borham who died on 12 July 2003 at the age of 72 years. He was survived by his widow, the plaintiff, his second wife and his six children by his first marriage. The plaintiff and the deceased had no children of their relationship.

The will of the deceased

2 The deceased made his will on 19 June 2003, shortly before his death. In paragraph 4 of that will he gave an option to his son, Philip, to purchase his dairy farm, subject to various purchase conditions. Clause 5 of the will dealt with his residency at 33 Kolodong Road, Taree in which he provided in a sense essentially for a right of residence for the plaintiff, his widow. Clause 5 of the will is in the following terms:

          “I direct my Trustees, concerning my property at 33 Kolodong Road Taree (hereinafter referred to as ‘the home’) as follows:
          (a) my wife Mavis Olive Borham may reside in the home for as long as she wishes provided she pays the rates and taxes levied on the home, the premiums on any insurance policies taken out by my Trustees on the home and keeps it in repair to the satisfaction of all of my Trustees.
          (b) Until my said wife has ceased to live in the home permanently or to comply with the conditions of her right of occupation, it shall not be sold without her consent.
          (c) At the written request of my said wife, my Trustees shall sell the home and buy another residence or interest in a retirement village to which the same provisions as those expressed in this clause shall apply.
          (d) Any cash balance arising from the sale and purchase shall form part of the residue of my estate and any deficit shall be met by my said wife and any costs whatsoever incurred in the sale and purchase shall also be met from the sale proceeds of the home.
          (e) Once my said wife has either ceased to live permanently in the home, or in any new…
Details
AGLC
Borham v Montague [2006] NSWSC 1289
Case
[2006] NSWSC 1289
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Borham v Montague was a case in which the deceased, Borham, left his estate to his second wife, Montague, and excluded his children from his first marriage. Montague applied for provision to be made for the children under the Family Provision Act 1969. The dispute centred around whether the deceased had made adequate financial provision for his children from his first marriage and whether Montague, as the second wife, was entitled to the family home. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the Family Provision Act and the deceased's intention in relation to his estate. The court had to determine whether the deceased's provisions were just and equitable, particularly in light of the statutory presumption in favour of the second wife. Furthermore, the court needed to balance Montague's entitlement to the family home against the children's need for financial support.

The court found that while the deceased had provided for Montague, he had not adequately provided for his children. The court emphasised the importance of considering the deceased's overall estate and his intention to support his children. The court rejected Montague's claim to the family home, ruling that it was not necessary for her reasonable financial security. Instead, the court ordered that Montague provide maintenance payments to the children from the deceased's estate. The court concluded that the children's need for financial support outweighed Montague's claim to the residence.

The court's final order was that Montague was to pay the children of the deceased from his estate. The court did not grant Montague the family home, finding that it was not required for her reasonable financial security. Instead, the court ordered that Montague provide maintenance payments to the children, reflecting the deceased's intention to support them. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the deceased's overall estate and intention when making family provision orders under the Family Provision Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.