Bramwell v Bramwell

Case [2022] SASC 12


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil)

BRAMWELL v BRAMWELL & ORS

[2022] SASC 12

Judgment of the Honourable Auxiliary Justice Bochner  

SUCCESSION - FAMILY PROVISION - REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE - DUTY OF TESTATOR - DUTY TO SPOUSE OR PARTNER

Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA); Evidence Act 1929 (SA); Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), referred to.
Lang v Davey [2020] SASC 160; Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201; Carter v Brine [2015] SASC 204; Devereaux-Warnes v Hall (No 3) [2007] WASCA 235; Slack v Rogan; Plaffy v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326; Steinmetz v Shannon & Anor (2019) 368 ALR 161; Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65, considered.

BRAMWELL v BRAMWELL & ORS
[2022] SASC 12

CIVIL

  1. Donald Gordon Bramwell (“the deceased”) died on 6 December 2018, at the age of 84. His will, dated 5 December 2017, was admitted to probate on 3 July 2019, with his widow, the applicant, and his daughter, the third respondent, appointed executors. I will refer to his widow and his daughter as the applicant and the respondent.

  2. The applicant has brought a claim for further provision from the deceased’s estate, pursuant to the terms of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972 (SA) (“the Act”). I note that the applicant’s claim was brought outside of the time limit prescribed by the Act; the respondent consents to an extension of time to bring this action. I mention this for completeness.

    The estate

  3. At the time of the deceased’s death, his estate comprised:

    ·A half share in the home of the deceased and the applicant (and in which the applicant still lives), valued at $385,000;

    ·The refundable accommodation bond from the nursing home in which the deceased lived at the end of his life, in the sum of $459,276.65;

    ·Furniture and household effects, valued at $7,000;

    ·Superannuation in the sum of $518,456.92;

    ·Shares to the value of approximately $1,000; and

    ·Cash of around $34,000.

  4. The estate had no liabilities; the net estate was in the region of $1,405,000.

  5. The applicant and the deceased owned their home as tenants in common.

  6. In 2016, the deceased completed a Binding Death Benefit Nomination (“BDBN”) in respect of his self-managed superannuation fund, the DG Bramwell & Co Superannuation Fund (“the Super Fund”). In effect, he divided his benefit in half, and directed that half go to the applicant, as a pension, to be paid at the minimum pension rate. The terms of the BDBN prevented the applicant from amending the pension terms to permit commutation of the pension or any increase of the pension drawdown. On the applicant’s death, the residual capital value of the pension stream was to be paid into his estate. I will refer to this portion of the superannuation benefit as the pension stream. He directed that the remaining 50% of his superannuation benefit be paid into his estate.

    The will

  7. By his will, the deceased:

    ·forgave…

Continue reading Bramwell v Bramwell

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bramwell v Bramwell [2022] SASC 12
Case
[2022] SASC 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bramwell v Bramwell was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from the will of the deceased, who made various provisions for both the applicant and the respondent. The applicant sought to challenge the will, claiming that it did not provide for her adequate and proper maintenance.

The court was required to determine whether the provisions made in the will for the applicant were adequate and proper maintenance. The applicant argued that the provisions were inadequate because she was not provided with a home or a pension for life. The respondent argued that the provisions made in the will were adequate and proper maintenance, given the applicant's financial independence and the fact that she had been provided with a home and a pension for life.

The court found that the provisions made in the will were adequate and proper maintenance. The court noted that the applicant was financially independent and had been provided with a home and a pension for life. The court also found that the provisions made in the will were reasonable and just, given the applicant's financial independence and the fact that she had been provided with a home and a pension for life.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim and held that the provisions made in the will were adequate and proper maintenance.

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

By his will, the deceased:·forgave any debts owed to him by the respondent;·left a number of personal items to the respondent;·allowed the applicant to have the use of the household furniture and household effects contained in their home for her lifetime, after which they were to go to the respondent;·directed that any benefit from his superannuation fund which was paid into his estate was to be paid to the respondent;·gave, following the applicant’s death, four legacies in the sum of $10,000 each, to be paid from the pension stream, with the balance of the pension stream to go to the respondent;·gave a legacy of $400,000 to the respondent; ·gave a legacy of $60,000 to the applicant;·gave the applicant a right to reside in the home during her lifetime, on the basis that she pay all rates, taxes, and other outgoings, keep the property in good repair, and keep it appropriately insured. In the event that the applicant wished to live elsewhere, the property was to be sold, and three quarters of the deceased’s share of the proceeds of sale were to be placed in a trust and used for the purpose of providing a residence for the applicant, but only on the basis that resort was only had to the trust once the applicant’s own share of the proceeds of sale was exhausted. ·the residuary estate was to be divided equally between the applicant and the respondent.The evidence called on behalf of the applicant The applicant gave the following evidence in support of her case. The applicant was born in 1943. In 1958, she commenced working for a chartered accountant; it was here that she met the deceased for the first time. While working, she undertook tertiary study, and qualified as an accountant. In 1965, at the age of 22, the applicant married for the first time. Her husband was killed in an accident less than two years later; at that time, they had resigned their employment with the intention of becoming dairy farmers. After her husband’s death, the applicant returned to work as an accountant at the South Australian Seed Growers Co-operative, and sat her final exams to become a chartered accountant in 1966. In about 1968, the applicant encountered the deceased again, after not seeing him for some years. He offered her a job at the firm where he was working at that time, which she accepted. The applicant remarried in 1974. She and her husband had two daughters, and in 1981, she, her husband and children moved to Victor Harbor to run a motor vehicle franchise. She and her husband retained the deceased’s firm to do their tax. In 1987, the applicant’s marriage came to an end, and shortly thereafter, she and the deceased commenced their relationship. The deceased, by this time, had separated from his first wife. The applicant and the deceased commenced living together in 1987, first at a house in Gilberton. In early 1988, they bought a house at Wattle Park together, making equal contributions to its purchase. During this time, the applicant’s daughters lived with them; the respondent lived with them intermittently. In January 1989, the applicant and the deceased were married.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.