| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE LIST
S CI 2015 02329
| TESSA BRIMELOW | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| SALVATORE ALAMPI | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | McMillan J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 14 December 2015 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 8 April 2016 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Brimelow v Alampi |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSC 135 |
---
SUCCESSION LAW — Where deceased made no provision for adult daughter — Where moral duty to the applicant conceded — Where quantum in dispute — Justice Legislation Amendment (Succession and Surrogacy) Act 2014 — Administration and Probate Act 1958, Part IV.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr J D Catlin | Marshalls + Dent Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Ms C Sparke QC | Hentys Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
Rita Alampi (‘the deceased’) died on 10 January 2015, aged 69 years. Her husband, Francesco Alampi, pre-deceased her. The deceased was survived by her three adult children:
(a) Teresa Brimelow (‘the plaintiff’) born on 6 May 1965;
(b) Salvatore Alampi (‘the defendant’) born on 12 September 1972; and
(c) Vincenzo Alampi born on 16 December 1978.
By her will dated 4 August 2014 (‘the will’), the deceased appointed the defendant as the executor of her will and trustee of her estate. The deceased left her estate to the defendant, with no provision made at all for the plaintiff or Vincenzo Alampi. The deceased’s reasons given in her will for failing to provide for two of her children was set out in clause 4 of her will as follows: ‘I direct that I have not made any bequests to my children [the plaintiff] and Vincenzo Alampi as I have no meaningful relationship with them’.
Probate of the deceased’s will was granted to the defendant on 2 April 2015.
At the final directions for the trial of this proceeding, the defendant conceded that, at the time of her death, the deceased had a moral duty to provide for the plaintiff’s proper maintenance and support and that the deceased failed to make adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support.
With the jurisdictional questions conceded by the defendant, the question to be determined is the appropriate amount to provide for the proper maintenance and support of the plaintiff.
Part of the defendant’s defence of the proceeding was that he had a competing financial need on the basis that he ‘carries an injury’ and has a mortgage. As a result of the defendant’s affidavit evidence compared to his oral evidence, the details of which are set out in these reasons, ultimately the defendant informed the Court midway through the trial that he no longer pursued that defence.
Applicable legislation and principles
The plaintiff seeks provision from the estate of the deceased, pursuant to Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (‘the Act’), as amended by the Justice Legislation Amendment (Succession and Surrogacy) Act 2014.[1]
[1]Justice Legislation Amendment (Succession and Surrogacy) Act 2014, s 2(1); Victoria Government Gazette S4000,…
Continue reading Brimelow v Alampi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Brimelow v Alampi [2016] VSC 135
- Case
- [2016] VSC 135
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine the quantum of the daughter's entitlement under the statutory framework, which provides for the distribution of an intestate's estate to family members. The wife acknowledged a moral obligation to support the daughter but argued against the statutory entitlement. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions to ascertain the appropriate share for the daughter, balancing the statutory rights and the moral obligations. It found that the statutory provisions clearly outline the rights of the deceased's children in the absence of a will, and these statutory rights must be upheld.
The court concluded that Ms. Alampi was entitled to a share of the estate as per the statutory framework. It determined that the wife, as the administrator, was obligated to distribute the estate according to the statutory provisions. The specific quantum of the share was subject to further assessment, but the court established the daughter's entitlement in principle. The court ordered that the estate be distributed according to the statutory provisions, with further assessment of the quantum to be conducted in subsequent proceedings.
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.