Dion v Rieser

Case [2010] NSWSC 50


CITATION: Dion v Rieser [2010] NSWSC 50
HEARING DATE(S): 26-30 October 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 

12 February 2010
JUDGMENT OF: Bryson AJ at 1
DECISION: (1) Declare that the plaintiff Margaret Anne Dion was the de facto spouse of the late Richard Davis Rieser the intestate at the time of his death and is entitled to the real and personal estate of the intestate in accordance with Section 61B(1) and (2) of the Probate and Administration Act 1898.
(2) Reserve costs.
CATCHWORDS: WILLS PROBATE AND ADMINISTRATION – Intestacy – De facto spouse – Decision that plaintiff was de facto spouse of intestate – Review of evidence of events in relationship from February 1981 until death of intestate in February 2007 – Plaintiff and deceased had many journeys separately and apart and did not stay in one place for more than a few months at a time – Houses in New South Wales, Bali and New Mexico – Often physically separated but always returned to be together – Consideration of conduct during illness and hospitalisations – At time of death had not been together in same place for eight months – HELD – De facto relationship as defined, plaintiff entitled on intestacy.
LEGISLATION CITED: Commonwealth Constitution s 51 (xxi)
De Facto Relationships Act 1984
Probate and Administration Act 1898 ss 32G, 40 and 61B(2)
Property (Relationships) Legislation Amendment Act 1999 s4 and Sch 2
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 s 4
Succession Act 2006
Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Bar Mordecai v Hillston [2004] NSWCA 65
Bremer v Freeman (1857) 10 Moore Privy Council 306;14 ER 508
Hayes v Marquis [2008] NSWCA 10
Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2003] NSWSC 89
Howland v Ellis [2001] NSWCA 456
Jones v Grech [2001] NSWCA 208; 27 Fam LR 711
Robson v Quijarro [2009] NSWCA 365
Simonis v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd (1987) 21 NSWLR 677
Sullman v Sullman [2002] NSWSC 169
TEXTS CITED: Conflict of Laws in Australia, 7th ed, 2002, Nygh and Davies p 679
PARTIES: Margaret Anne DION (plaintiff)
Nancy Cimarron RIESER (first defendant)
Steven Robert RIESER (second defendant)
Estate of Richard Davis Rieser
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2008/291431
COUNSEL: M B EVANS/ A KETAS (plaintiff)
A SCOTTING (defendants)
SOLICITORS: Hungerford Lehmann & Andrews (plaintiff)
Teece, Hodgson & Ward (defendants)
- 32 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
PROBATE LIST

BRYSON AJ

FRIDAY, 12 FEBRUARY, 2010

2008/291431 Margaret Anne DION v Nancy Cimarron RIESER & Ors – Estate of Richard Davis RIESER

JUDGMENT

:

      INDEX TO JUDGMENT
      Intestacy, Will and Revocation 1
      Letters of Administration in New Mexico 6
      Claim for Administration in New South Wales, de facto spouse 7
      Moveable Property In New South Wales 20
      Claim to interest in house in New South Wales 22
      Moveable property in New Mexico 30
      Assets in Hong Kong 33
      Land in New Mexico 35
      Leased Land in Indonesia 39
      Land formerly owned in Queensland 43
      De facto relationship formation and early years 46

Continue reading Dion v Rieser

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dion v Rieser [2010] NSWSC 50
Case
[2010] NSWSC 50
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dion v Rieser is a case that deals with the issue of whether the plaintiff, Dion, was the de facto spouse of the deceased, Rieser, for the purposes of claiming on his estate. The dispute arose before the Family Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the nature of the relationship between the parties and the applicability of the definition of a de facto spouse under the Family Law Act. The central issue before the court was whether Dion and Rieser had a de facto relationship as defined by the act at the time of Rieser's death in February 2007. The court had to review the evidence concerning their relationship from February 1981 until Rieser's death, assessing the nature of their interactions and the extent to which they shared a domestic life.

The court considered the evidence of their extensive travels and the fact that they did not reside in a single location for more than a few months at a time, moving between houses in New South Wales, Bali, and New Mexico. It also took into account periods where they were physically separated yet consistently reunited. Additionally, the court examined the conduct of both parties during periods of illness and hospitalisations, noting their commitment to one another during these times. Despite not having been in the same place for eight months prior to Rieser's death, the court found that their relationship met the statutory definition of a de facto relationship. The court held that Dion was entitled to claim on Rieser's estate as his de facto spouse.

The court's reasoning hinged on the overall conduct of the parties over the duration of their relationship, finding that their commitment to each other and shared life, despite the transient nature of their living arrangements, met the requirements of the Family Law Act. The final orders confirmed that Dion was entitled to succeed on the intestate's estate based on their de facto relationship.

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.