Helg v Sergiacomi

[2014] QSC 50

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Helg v Sergiacomi & Another [2014] QSC 50

PARTIES:

ROSINA MARIA HELG

Applicant

And

ROBERT SALVATORE SERGIACOMI

First Respondent

PETER GERARD SERGIACOMI

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S:

S33/14

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

27 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

17 March 2014

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDERS:

The application is dismissed.1.

The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the application on the standard basis. 2.

CATCHWORDS

SUCCESSION - PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES – PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES – where the applicant is seeking disclosure of documents from the executors of her mother’s estate – where applicant is unclear of what documents should be disclosed – where no proceedings currently on foot – whether an order for disclosure should be made. 

Land Title Act 1994 (Qld)
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Helg v Sergiacomi & Anor [2011] QSC 322 cited

COUNSEL:

Applicant in person
Respondents in person

SOLICITORS:

Applicant in person
Respondents in person

1. McMeekin J: The Applicant, Rosina Maria Helg, is a beneficiary under the terms of the will of her late mother, Santina Sergiacomi (the deceased). The respondents, Robert Salvatore Sergiacomi and Peter Gerard Sergiacomi are her brothers and were appointed by their mother as the Executors of her Will. While the Originating Application does not say so as it should,[1] they are sued in that representative capacity.

   [1]Rule 18 UCPR

1. The deceased died on 21 February 2009. Administration of her estate is all but completed. A tax return for the 2012-13 year remains to be filed.   

1. After hearing from Mrs Helg and studying her affidavits it is clear that she is concerned that the respondents have not administered the estate according to law and in the interest of the beneficiaries. She had similar concerns in relation to her late father’s estate against the same respondents. Many of the issues seem to overlap. I dealt with the complaints that she then made in 2011:  Helg v Sergiacomi & Anor [2011] QSC 322.

1. The applicant is self represented, as are the respondents. Despite listening to Mrs Helg for several hours I am not at all sure what order it is that she expects from her application.

1. In her originating application the applicant first refers to r 643 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”), s 81 of the Land Title Act 1994, and s 80 of the Property Law Act 1974 and then the application reads: “I am applying to the court to retrieve all mortgage documentation over property owned by Santina Sergiacomi located at Property Description: Lot 2 RP 221931: County of March: Parish: Urangan: Title Reference: 17212011 – from the executors of my late mother’s estate.”

1. There then follows an assertion of the history of the ownership of the property mentioned – it had been owned jointly by the applicant’s parents, was transferred by the respondents (in their capacity as their father’s executors) to their mother…