Crowley v Crowley - [2019] QDC 114

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Crowley v Crowley [2019] QDC 114

PARTIES:

KELLY CROWLEY
(applicant)

v

MARION ELAINE CROWLEY (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN PATRICK CROWLEY – DECEASED)
(respondent)

FILE NO:

226/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2019 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2019

JUDGE:

Fantin DCJ

ORDER:

Application allowed.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – compromise of family provision application under Part 4 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) – whether provision is adequate and proper having regard to the totality of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased – where the absence of a good relationship is not a disqualifying factor – where the applicant was the son of the deceased – where the applicant and the deceased did not enjoy a close relationship – where the applicant suffers from chronic illnesses and is unable to work – where only a modest provision was made for the applicant in the deceased’s will – where the parties reached agreement at mediation – whether the court should make orders to give effect to the settlement

Legislation
District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 68(1)(b)
Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41

Cases
Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] 221 CLR 191
White v Barron [1980] 144 CLR 431

COUNSEL:

C Ryall for the applicant

M Treston (solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Preston Law for the applicant
Murray & Lyons Solicitors for the respondent

This is an application for final orders to give effect to the compromise of the family provision claim by Kelly Crowley, pursuant to section 41 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld), in the estate of John Patrick Crowley.

The applicant is the 39 year old son of the deceased. The deceased died on 10 August 2018, aged 72, in Cairns. The respondent is the 72 year old sister of the deceased and the executor of his last will. The applicant and the respondent are both competent adults and reached the settlement with the assistance of legal representation at a mediation in April 2019. The deceased was survived only by the applicant and the respondent.

By way of background, in 2015, the deceased made a will in which he gave $100,000 to the applicant, $20,000 to his friend, Mr Hards, and the residue to the respondent. At the same time, he wrote to the applicant saying that he may alter the amount given to the applicant in a later will, depending on the amount of contact he had with the applicant and how well they got on.

In 2017, he made another will which was his last will. Pursuant to that will executed on 8 June 2017, the deceased appointed the respondent as executor and trustee. Under the terms of that will the deceased left only $20,000 to the applicant, $20,000 to his friend, Mr Hards, and the…

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 Crowley v Crowley

Details

AGLC: Crowley v Crowley [2019] QDC 114
Case: [2019] QDC 114
Decision Date: 21 May 2019 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Family Court of Australia, Crowley sought a review of the settlement reached between herself and her father, the deceased, in relation to a family provision application under the Succession Act 1981 (Qld). The central dispute involved the adequacy of maintenance provisions made for Crowley in her father’s will, given her chronic illnesses and inability to work. The relationship between Crowley and her father was strained, which further complicated the assessment of her needs.

The primary legal issue was whether the compromise reached at mediation adequately provided for Crowley's maintenance, considering the totality of her relationship with her father and her current circumstances. The court had to balance the statutory requirement for adequate and proper maintenance against the context of their relationship and the compromise reached. It was necessary to determine if the modest provision made in the will, coupled with the mediation agreement, met the legal criteria for adequacy.

The court held that the settlement, which provided for a specific financial provision to Crowley, adequately addressed her maintenance needs. The court recognised that the strained relationship did not preclude the need for adequate maintenance, especially considering Crowley's health conditions. The agreement reached at mediation was deemed to reflect a fair compromise that appropriately balanced the interests of all parties involved. Consequently, the court allowed the application and made orders to give effect to the settlement.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application allowed.

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.

CITATION:	Crowley v Crowley [2019] QDC 114
PARTIES:	KELLY CROWLEY (applicant) v MARION ELAINE CROWLEY (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF JOHN PATRICK CROWLEY – DECEASED) (respondent)
FILE NO:	226/18
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	21 May 2019 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	17 May 2019
JUDGE:	Fantin DCJ
ORDER:	Application allowed.
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION – REQUIREMENT FOR ADEQUATE AND PROPER MAINTENANCE – compromise of family provision application under Part 4 of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) – whether provision is adequate and proper having regard to the totality of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased – where the absence of a good relationship is not a disqualifying factor – where the applicant was the son of the deceased – where the applicant and the deceased did not enjoy a close relationship – where the applicant suffers from chronic illnesses and is unable to work – where only a modest provision was made for the applicant in the deceased’s will – where the parties reached agreement at mediation – whether the court should make orders to give effect to the settlement Legislation District Court Act 1967 (Qld), s 68(1)(b) Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 41 Cases Singer v Berghouse (No 2) (1994) 181 CLR 201 Vigolo v Bostin [2005] 221 CLR 191 White v Barron [1980] 144 CLR 431
COUNSEL:	C Ryall for the applicant M Treston (solicitor) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Preston Law for the applicant Murray & Lyons Solicitors for the respondent