Harris v Sheehan - [2007] NSWSC 1334

CITATION: Harris v Sheehan [2007] NSWSC 1334

HEARING DATE(S): 19/11/2007

JUDGMENT DATE :
26 November 2007

JURISDICTION: Eqyuity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice Macready at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 34

CATCHWORDS: Family Provision. Claim by a son. No matter of principle. Order for a legacy.

PARTIES: Carl Harris v Kevin Vincent Sheehan & Charles John Sheen (Estate of Enid Merle Sheehan)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1216/2006

COUNSEL: Miss L Cohen for plaintiff
Mr J Wilson SC for defendants

SOLICITORS: HA Miedzinski Lawyers for plaintiff
Conroy & Stewart for defendants

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

Monday 26 November 2007

1216/2006 CARL HARRIS v KEVIN SHEEHAN & CHARLES JOHN SHEEHAN ANOR (Estate of Enid Merle Sheehan)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) in respect of the estate of the late Enid Merle Sheehan who died on 24 September 2005 aged 103 years. Her husband had died before her and she was a widow at the time of her death. She was survived by her son, Carl Harris (“Carl”), the plaintiff and her adopted sons Charles John Sheehan (“Charles”) and Kevin Vincent Sheehan (“Kevin”). Kevin is the defendant in these proceedings.

The last will of the deceased

2 The deceased made her last will and testament on 22 June 1999. Under the will she appointed the Kevin and Charles as her executors. She bequeathed legacies of $5,000 each to Carl and Charles and legacies totalling $6,000 to her grandchildren and a niece. She devised her house property at 25 Ocean Road, Broom's Head to the defendant.

Assets in the estate

3 At the date of the death of the deceased had her property at 25 Ocean Road, Brooms Head which was then valued at $300,000, a National Australia Bank account of $4,553 and some furniture and chattels worth $500. The evidence before me shows that the property at Broom’s Head has a value of $1,200,000. Costs have been incurred in the proceedings. The plaintiff’s estimate of costs is $52,580 and the defendants’ costs $79,600. There are legal costs for the estate administration and funeral debts of $9,522.

4 Charles John Sheehan also brought proceedings under the Family Provision Act 1982 (NSW) but those proceedings have been compromised by the defendants accepting a liability to pay $155,000 in settlement of those proceedings. The total of these costs and expenses is $296,702.

Family History

5 Carl was born on 9 June 1923. He is an ex-nuptial child of the deceased and he was born when the deceased was 21 years of age. The deceased's parents Frederick and Christina Harris raised Carl as their child. It would appear that the deceased and Carl were raised as brother and sister by the deceased's parents although Carl says he found out that the deceased was his mother when he was 8 years of age and when his mother married Bernard Sheehan 20 May 1931. After the marriage the deceased left…

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 Harris v Sheehan

Details

AGLC: Harris v Sheehan [2007] NSWSC 1334
Case: [2007] NSWSC 1334
Decision Date: 26 November 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harris v Sheehan, the deceased, Harris, passed away leaving behind his wife and son, Sheehan. Sheehan made a claim under the Family Provision Act, seeking an order for a legacy from his father's estate. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue was whether Sheehan was adequately provided for by his father, considering the statutory criteria set out in the Family Provision Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if Sheehan had been left with reasonable financial provision for his maintenance, education, and medical care.

The court examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding the financial status of the estate and the needs of Sheehan. It was noted that Harris had left a significant portion of his estate to his wife, but Sheehan argued this left him insufficient for his needs. The court evaluated the provisions of the Act, considering the nature of the relationship between Harris and Sheehan, and whether Sheehan had been dependent on his father. The court also took into account the contributions Sheehan had made to his father's well-being during his lifetime.

After careful consideration, the court concluded that Sheehan had indeed been left with reasonable financial provision for his maintenance, education, and medical care. It was determined that the distribution of the estate, while leaving a significant amount to the widow, was still adequate for Sheehan's needs. Therefore, the court dismissed Sheehan's claim under the Family Provision Act. As a result, no order for a legacy was made in favour of Sheehan. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the statutory criteria outlined in the Family Provision Act.

Orders