ROBYN JOYCE FLOCAS	Plaintiff
v
BIRDIE LORRAINE CARLSON, RAYMOND CHARLES SWIFT and JEFFREY KEITH SWIFT (as executors of the will and estate of MARJORIE LILLIAN SWIFT, deceased)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25–26, 28 September 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Flocas v Carlson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 221

---

Equity — Mutual wills — Whether sufficiently proved — Whether constructive trust arises — Whether Statute of Frauds prevents trust — Proprietary estoppel — Whether representation sufficiently proved — Whether estoppel enforceable by residuary beneficiary — Instruments Act 1958, s 126

Succession law — Testator’s family maintenance — Claim by niece of deceased — Where mutual wills agreement alleged with plaintiff’s father — Whether responsibility to provide — Administration and Probate Act 1958, s 91

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Wells with Mr P Pascoe	Campbell & Shaw
For the Defendant	Ms S Marks QC with Mr G Baker	Kelly & Chapman

HER HONOUR:

On 9 February 1996, Marjorie Lillian Swift (‘Marjorie’) and her brother Robert Charles Dawson (‘Robert’) executed wills. The major issue of dispute in this case concerns whether on that day Marjorie and Robert agreed that, in effect, Robert’s only daughter Robyn Joyce Flocas (‘the plaintiff’) would ultimately be entitled to half of their jointly owned property at 40 Alfred Street Prahran (‘the Alfred Street property’).

A brief family history

Charles Bowie Dawson (‘Charles’) and Lillian Birdie Dawson (‘Lillian’) had two children, Marjorie and Robert. Their family home was the Alfred Street property. From historical title materials produced by the plaintiff, it had been the family home since at least 1941. Following Lillian’s death on 18 September 1949, on 3 March 1950 Charles, Marjorie and Robert were registered as tenants in common in equal shares in the Alfred Street property.

Marjorie and Keith had three children, Birdie Lorraine Carlson (‘Birdie’), Raymond Charles Swift (‘Raymond’) and Jeffrey Keith Swift (‘Jeff’) (collectively ‘the defendants’). Robert and his wife Joyce Evelyn Dawson (‘Joyce’) adopted the plaintiff 10 days after she was born on 7 September 1962. Both families lived at the Alfred Street property with Charles. Joyce died on 19 October 1973. As the children grew older, they moved out, with the plaintiff, the youngest, moving out in 1985. The plaintiff gave evidence that, between her mother’s death and when she left home, she did not have a warm relationship with Marjorie, and did not get along with Jeff.

Charles died on 8 October 1990, leaving a final will dated 9 March 1966 appointing Robert and Marjorie as executors and leaving the whole of his estate to Robert and Marjorie in equal shares. Robert and Marjorie remained…

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 Flocas v Carlson

Details

AGLC: Flocas v Carlson [2015] VSC 221
Case: [2015] VSC 221
Decision Date: 4 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flocas v Carlson involved a dispute concerning the estate of a deceased individual, with the plaintiff, Flocas, seeking a share of the estate based on alleged mutual wills and a promise of family maintenance. The court had to determine whether the mutual wills were sufficiently proven and if a constructive trust arose, as well as whether the Statute of Frauds precluded such a trust. Additionally, the court needed to assess if a proprietary estoppel applied based on a representation made to the plaintiff's father and whether this estoppel could be enforced by the residuary beneficiary. The relevant statutes included the Instruments Act 1958, section 126, and the Administration and Probate Act 1958, section 91.

The central legal issues were whether the mutual wills agreement was adequately demonstrated and whether a constructive trust was appropriate given the Statute of Frauds. The court also examined whether a proprietary estoppel was established by a representation made to the plaintiff's father and whether this estoppel could be enforced by the residuary beneficiary. These issues necessitated a careful analysis of the evidence provided regarding the mutual wills, the applicability of the Statute of Frauds, and the elements of proprietary estoppel.

The court held that the mutual wills agreement was not sufficiently proven to establish a constructive trust, primarily due to the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Additionally, the court found that the proprietary estoppel was not adequately substantiated because the representation made to the plaintiff's father did not meet the necessary criteria for enforcement. Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The final orders of the court reflected the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims, indicating that the court did not recognise any entitlement to the estate based on the mutual wills agreement or proprietary estoppel. The court's decision underscored the stringent requirements for establishing such claims, particularly in the context of succession law and the protections afforded by the Statute of Frauds.

Orders