Crossman v Riedel
Case
•
[2004] ACTSC 127
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Crossman v Riedel [2004] ACTSC 127
[2004] ACTSC 127
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicants, Geoffrey Crossman and Beth Cowan, sought an order that adequate provision be made for them from the estate of their mother, Delegate Adele Crossman. The mother died leaving a will providing that her daughter, Marie Dawn Riedel, was the sole beneficiary. The applicants applied for adequate provision for their proper maintenance, education and advancement in life. The court considered the provisions of the Family Provision Act 1969 (ACT) and relevant case law. The court found that the applicants were not provided for adequately. The court made an order that provision be made from the whole of the estate after payment of the just debts and testamentary expenses as to an amount being one quarter of the estate for the benefit of Geoffrey Crossman and an amount being one quarter of the estate for the benefit of Beth Cowan. The court also made an order that the costs of the parties to these proceedings be paid out of the estate.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Succession Law
Legal Concepts
-
Adequate Provision
-
Proper Maintenance
-
Family Provision Act 1969 (ACT)
-
Contingency Planning
-
Testator's Reasons
-
Equitable Distribution
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Crossman v Riedel [2004] ACTSC 127
Most Recent Citation
Abbott v Abbott [2025] WASC 30
Cases Citing This Decision
282
Armouti v Nenes
[2022] ACTCA 3
Sgro v Thompson
[2017] NSWCA 326
Green v Jones
[2025] NSWSC 293
Cases Cited
12
Statutory Material Cited
0
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Vigolo v Bostin
[2002] WASCA 327
Andrew v Andrew
[2012] NSWCA 308