Estate MPS, deceased

Case [2017] NSWSC 482


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Estate MPS, deceased [2017] NSWSC 482
Hearing dates: 19, 20 and 21 April 2017
Date of orders: 30 May 2017
Decision date: 04 May 2017
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:

A grant of family provision relief is to be made, in the form of a legacy, subject to consideration of whether orders should be made, upon an exercise of protective jurisdiction, to provide for management of the estate of the plaintiff as a person in need of protection.

Catchwords:

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Close personal relationship — Elements — Living together, domestic support and personal care — Separate residences — Nature and quality of relationship — Social intimacy

 

SUCCESSION – Family provision — Close personal relationship — Elements — Provision of domestic support and personal care — Not for fee and reward

 

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Conduct disentitling — Character and conduct of applicant — Need to examine totality of relationship

 

SUCCESSION — Family provision — Capacity of applicant to manage affairs — Form of relief — Protective orders

  PROTECTIVE JURISDICTION —Family provision application – Capacity for self-management — Conduct of proceedings without tutor — Form of relief – Protective orders
Legislation Cited: Family Provision Act 1982 NSW
NSW Trustee and Guardian Act 2009 NSW.
Probate & Administration Act 1898 NSW
Property (Relationships) Act 1984 NSW
Succession Act 2006 NSW
Testator’s Family Maintenance and Guardianship of Infants Act 1916 NSW
Trustee Act 1925 NSW
Cases Cited: A v A [2015] NSWSC 1778
Amprimo v Wynn [2015] NSWCA 286
Amprimo v Wynn [2015] NSWCA 286
Andrew v Andrew (2012) 81 NSWLR 656
Barlevy v Nadolski [2011] NSWSC 129
Bayssari v Bazouni [2014] NSWSC 910
Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170
Carroll v Cowburn [2003] NSWSC 248
Churton v Christian (1988) 13 NSWLR 241
CJ v AKJ [2015] NSWSC 498
Collins v McGain [2003] NSWCA 190
Dridi v Fillmore [2001] NSWSC 319
Fulton v Fulton [2014] NSWSC 619
GAU v GAV [2016] 1 QdR 1; [2014] QCA 308
Hayes v Marquis [2008] NSWCA 10
Hinderry v Hinderry [2016] NSWSC 780
Holden Francis Frisoli v Natasha Anastasia Kourea [2013] NSWSC 1166
IA v TA [2016] NSWCA 179
In re the Will of FB Gilbert (dec’d) (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318
Jodell v Woods [2017] NSWSC 143
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
McLean v Public Trustee [2001] NSWSC 970
Meres v Meres [2017] NSWSC 285
Page v Page [2016] NSWSC 1218
Popescu v Borun [2011] NSWSC 1532
Re Fulop Deceased (1987) 8 NSWLR 679
Re W and L (Parameters of Protected Estate Management Orders) [2014] NSWSC 1106
Sammut v Kleemann in Meres v Meres [2017] NSWSC 285
Saravinovksa v Saravinovski (No 6) [ 2016] NSWSC 964
Skarica v Toska [2014] NSWSC 34
The Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith v Scales (1962) 107 CLR 9
Vigolo v Bostin [2005] 221 CLR 191
Texts Cited: -
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Plaintiff: DNF
Defendant: NTS
Representation:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: K Morrissey and…

Continue reading Estate MPS, deceased

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Estate MPS, deceased [2017] NSWSC 482
Case
[2017] NSWSC 482
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the estate of MPS, deceased, the applicant, who was the deceased's daughter, sought a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The dispute centred on whether the applicant could demonstrate a close personal relationship with the deceased that warranted a departure from the normal distribution of the estate under the will. The court was required to consider the nature and quality of the relationship, whether it included living together, providing domestic support and personal care, and whether the relationship was of a social intimate nature. The court also needed to examine the applicant's capacity to manage her affairs and whether any conduct on her part disentitled her from making the application.
The court held that the relationship between the applicant and the deceased was not one of living together, domestic support, and personal care, as they resided separately for the majority of their relationship. However, the court found that the relationship was of a social intimate nature, with the applicant providing emotional support to the deceased during periods of ill health. The court also held that the applicant's conduct did not disentitle her from making the application, as the totality of the relationship needed to be examined. The court further held that the applicant had the capacity to manage her affairs, and it was appropriate to make protective orders to ensure that the applicant did not dissipate her assets.
The court ultimately found that the applicant was entitled to a family provision order, but the exact amount was to be determined. The court also made protective orders to ensure that the applicant did not dissipate her assets. These orders included appointing a financial manager to oversee the applicant's finances and requiring the applicant to provide regular financial reports to the court. The court held that these orders were necessary to protect the applicant's interests and ensure that she could manage her affairs effectively.

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.