Di Cecco v Contini - [2004] VSC 211

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. Prob 29 of 2002

GIULIANA DI CECCO	Plaintiff
v
FULVIO CONTINI and MARIO CONTINI	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Whelan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May - 3 June 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 June 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Di Cecco v Contini
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 211

---

SUCCESSION - wills, probate and administration - application for grant of probate of will - alleged lack of testamentary capacity - evidence raising doubt as to testamentary capacity - whether testator demonstrably deluded or held value judgments so extreme as to defy credibility - testator does not lack capacity because he or she is harsh, unreasonable or unfair - finding of testamentary capacity - probate of will granted.

Re Estate of Griffith;Easter v Griffith (Unreported, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 7 June 1995); Perpetual Trustee v Baker [1999] NSWCA 244; Wechsler v Du Maurier [2002] NSWCA 13; West Australian Trustee Executor and Agency Co Ltd v Holmes [1961] WAR 144; Walsh v Legge (Unreported, Supreme Court of New South Wales, Cohen J, 12 March 1997).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R. McGarvie	Perillo Adami & Frank
For the Defendants	Mr S. Newton	Scomparin & Bernardi

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

In this proceeding the plaintiff, Giuliana Di Cecco, seeks probate of the last will of her late father, Armando Contini. The defendants, who oppose the grant of probate of this will, are the plaintiff’s two brothers. A third brother, Egidio, was killed in a motor vehicle accident in 1984. Egidio’s only surviving child is his daughter, Patrizia Abdelshahid. The defendants initially had two bases for opposition: lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Giuliana Di Cecco. The allegation of undue influence was abandoned on the first day of the hearing.

The testamentary capacity issue raised in this proceeding was not an issue of physical or mental impairment in a medical sense, or was not primarily so. It concerned, rather, the question of whether the testator was able to comprehend and appreciate the claims of his two surviving sons. The hearing substantially concerned the issue of whether the testator held views of his sons which were either based on demonstrably false delusions of fact or which were value judgments so extreme as to defy credibility.

In this judgment, for ease of reference, I will at times refer to Armando Contini simply as Mr Contini. I will refer to his children and to Patrizia Abdelshahid by their first names.

Brief family history

Mr Armando Contini was born in 1910 in Popoli, Italy. He married Maria Contini there and they had four children, Fulvio, Egidio, Giuliana and Mario. Mr Contini came to Australia in 1952 and his wife and four children followed him in 1954. In 1958 Mr Contini purchased a house at 5 Clifton Street, Richmond. Fulvio lent his father £100 for the deposit which his father…

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 Di Cecco v Contini

Details

AGLC: Di Cecco v Contini [2004] VSC 211
Case: [2004] VSC 211
Decision Date: 11 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Di Cecco sought the grant of probate of the will of her deceased husband, Contini. Contini's daughter from a previous relationship, Griffith, opposed the application, arguing that he lacked testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central legal issue was whether Contini had the testamentary capacity to execute the will in question. Griffith contended that Contini was demonstrably deluded or held extreme value judgments that defied credibility, which would negate his capacity. The court had to determine if Contini's views were so harsh, unreasonable, or unfair as to indicate a lack of capacity, or if he merely held opinions that the court should not disregard.

The court examined Contini’s mental state and the circumstances surrounding the execution of the will. It considered whether Contini’s views and actions demonstrated a lack of understanding or if they were merely unconventional. The court noted that testamentary capacity is not negated merely because a testator’s views are harsh, unreasonable, or unfair. Instead, the court must find that the testator lacks capacity if they are demonstrably deluded or hold beliefs that are so extreme they defy credibility. In this instance, the court found that Contini’s views, while harsh and unfair, did not indicate a lack of understanding or capacity. Consequently, the court granted the application for probate.

Based on the evidence presented, the court concluded that Contini had testamentary capacity when he executed the will. The opposition to the grant of probate was dismissed, and the court granted the application. This decision ensures that Contini's wishes, as expressed in the will, are legally upheld. The final order was the grant of probate to Di Cecco, allowing her to administer Contini’s estate according to the terms of the will.

Orders