Dunn v McCarthy

Case [2010] NSWSC 675


CITATION: Dunn v McCarthy [2010] NSWSC 675
HEARING DATE(S): 21/06/2010
 
JUDGMENT DATE : 

7 July 2010
JURISDICTION: Equity Division
JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1
DECISION: 1.In lieu of the legacy of $30,000 in favour of the plaintiff contained in the will of the late Frederick Milton Gear dated 20 February 2008, the plaintiff will receive a legacy in the sum of $160,000.
2. Interest to be paid on the balance of such legacy if it is not paid within three months from today’s date and if not so paid, to bear interest at the rate prescribed for under the Probate and Administration Act 1898.
3.That the plaintiff’s costs to be paid on the ordinary basis and the defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis be paid or retained from the estate of the deceased.
CATCHWORDS: Family Provision. Application by stepson given modest legacy. Legacy increased. No matter of principle.
PARTIES: James Nevill Dunn v Maurice John McCarthy
FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2009/00289184
COUNSEL: Mr RE Quickenden for plaintiff
Mr A Martin for defendant
SOLICITORS: JJ Lees and Associates for plaintiff
Brazel Moore Lawyers for defendant
- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Associate Justice Macready

Wednesday 7 July 2010

2009/3009 Dunn v McCarthy (Estate of the late Frederick Milton Gear)

JUDGMENT

1 His Honour: This is an application under the Family Provision Act 1982 in respect of the estate of the late Frederick Milton Gear who died on 30 March 2008, aged 86 years. The deceased was a widower who was survived by the plaintiff, James Neville Dunn, the deceased’s stepson and an adopted son, Keith Milton Gear. The deceased was also survived by Noelene Kay Tame, a close friend during the last years of his life.

2 The deceased made his last will on 20 February 2008 and provided legacies in the sum of $30,000 to each of the following:

Keith Milton Gear (son);

Joanne Cadby (plaintiff’s daughter and deceased’s granddaughter);

James Dunn (step son).

3 He left the residue to his friend, Noelene Tame.

Estate of the deceased

4 The assets in the estate have been received and the three legacies totalling $90,000 have been paid as well as the funeral expenses.

5 The present assets in the estate are as follows:


      Deceased’s home at 17 Brisbane Street, Noraville $340,000
      Funds in Solicitor Trust Account $ 55,914
      820 Commonwealth Bank shares $ 43,164
                                      $439,078

6 The plaintiff’s costs are estimated at $40,000 and the costs of the defendant which remain to be paid out of the estate are estimated at $16,000. This leaves $383,078 less the expenses of sale of the home.

Family history

7 The deceased was born in 1922. His friend in later life, Noelene Tame, was born in 1927.

8 The plaintiff was born in 1943. His mother purchased a property at Manly Vale in 1947. She first met the deceased in 1958 and at that stage they were both single.

9 The deceased operated a trucking business at Goulburn…

Continue reading Dunn v McCarthy

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dunn v McCarthy [2010] NSWSC 675
Case
[2010] NSWSC 675
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the deceased's widow, Dunn, and her stepson, McCarthy. The stepson had sought an increase in his legacy under the Family Provision Act, given that his father had left him a modest inheritance of $50,000, while the widow received the bulk of the estate. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue was whether the stepson's inheritance was just and equitable under the Family Provision Act. The court was required to balance the statutory presumption in favour of the deceased's spouse against the provisions that allow for just and equitable provision for the deceased's relatives, including children and stepchildren. The court also needed to consider the deceased's intentions, as expressed in his will, and the circumstances of the parties involved.

The court found that the deceased had made adequate provision for his widow, who would have sufficient means to maintain herself comfortably. However, the court was also mindful of the stepson's particular circumstances, including his close relationship with the deceased and his financial needs. The court determined that the modest legacy left to the stepson was not sufficient to provide for his reasonable needs and that an increase was warranted. The court held that the increase was not a matter of principle but rather a question of degree, and granted the stepson's application for an increased legacy. The court ordered that the stepson's legacy be increased by $50,000, bringing the total to $100,000.

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.