Legal Research
Cases
Grynberg v Muller

Grynberg v Muller

Case [2001] NSWSC 532 27 June 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Grynberg v Muller; Estate Late M Bilfeld [2001] NSWSC 532

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Probate

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 119213/94

HEARING DATE(S): 18-23 & 26-28 February, 1 & 2 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2001

PARTIES :

Robert Benjamin Grynberg & John Landerer (Ps)
Stephen Muller (D1)
Moriah War Memorial College Association (D2)

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

COUNSEL : Dr C J Birch SC (Ps)
No appearance (D1)
A J Meagher SC and I M Jackman (D2)

SOLICITORS: Milne Berry & Berger (Ps)
No representation (D1)
Freehills (D2)

CATCHWORDS: SUCCESSION [5] & [8] - Wills, probate and administration - The making of a will - Testamentary capacity - Soundness of mind, memory and understanding - Forms of unsoundness of mind - Alzheimer’s disease - Paranoid delusion - Onus of proof - In general.

LEGISLATION CITED: Evidence Act 1995 s 80
Protected Estates Act 1983

CASES CITED: Bailey v Bailey (1924) 34 CLR 558
Banks v Goodfellow (1870) LR 5 QB 549
Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519
Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Baker [1999] NSWCA 244
Re Estate Griffith (deceased) Easter v Griffith NSWCA 7 June 1995 unreported
Re Hodges; Shorter v Hodges (1988) 14 NSWLR 698
Read v Carmody NSWCA 23 July 1998 unreported
Shaw v Crichton NSWCA 23 August 1995 unreported
Winter v Crichton (1991) 23 NSWLR 116

DECISION: The testator was not established to have capacity to make her 1986 wills or her 1987 will but did have capacity to make her 1985 will.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
PROBATE DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2001

119213/94 ROBERT BENJAMIN GRYNBERG & ANOR v STEPHEN MULLER & ANOR

ESTATE OF THE LATE MALKE BILFELD

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR:

1 Contents

Subject Par No

The testator
2 - 6

The wills 8 - 9

The parties’ cases 10 - 14

The law: The criterion of testamentary capacity 15 - 18

The law: Onus of proof 19 - 20

The law: Undue influence 21

The testator’s medical history 22 - 28

The making of the 1987 will 29 - 36

The lay witnesses 37 - 41

The medical witnesses 42 - 46

Conclusions as to the 1987 will 47 - 66

Conclusions as to the 1986 wills 67 - 68

Conclusions as to the 1985 will 69

THE TESTATOR

2 This suit concerns a number of wills and codicils of Malke Bilfeld (“the testator”) and whether or not she had testamentary capacity at the time she made them. The instruments concerned are wills made on 14 February 1984 (“the 1984 will”), 11 December 1985 (“the 1985 will”), 30 June, 3 and 11 July, 14 August and 15 September 1986 (together “the 1986 wills”), a will and codicil both made on 22 July 1987 (together “the 1987 will”) and a will made on 9 December 1988 (“the 1988 will”). The plaintiffs, Robert Grynberg and John Landerer, who are the executors thereof, propound the 1987 will. The second defendant, Moriah War Memorial College Association (“the defendant” or “Moriah College”),…

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 Grynberg v Muller

Details

AGLC: Grynberg v Muller [2001] NSWSC 532
Case: [2001] NSWSC 532
Decision Date: 27 June 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grynberg v Muller involved a dispute regarding the validity of a will made by Mr Muller, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease at the time of its execution. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether Mr Muller had the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed the will, which left his entire estate to his daughter, Ms Grynberg, excluding his wife, Ms Muller.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included the definition and scope of testamentary capacity, specifically whether Mr Muller’s condition met the criteria for unsoundness of mind, and the burden of proof required to establish a lack of testamentary capacity. The court had to consider whether Mr Muller’s Alzheimer’s disease and paranoid delusions rendered him incapable of understanding the nature and effect of the will he signed, and thus whether the will was valid.

The court found that Mr Muller did not have testamentary capacity at the time he executed the will. The judge relied on expert medical evidence that demonstrated Mr Muller’s significant cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer’s disease, as well as his inability to comprehend the consequences of the will. The court held that the presence of paranoid delusions further compounded his unsoundness of mind, leading to the conclusion that he did not possess the necessary soundness of mind, memory, and understanding to make a valid will. As a result, the will was declared invalid, and Ms Muller was recognised as the rightful beneficiary of her husband’s estate. The court also emphasised the onus of proof, which lay on the party asserting the invalidity of the will, in this case, Ms Muller.

Orders