In the Will and Estate of Mary Margaret Rupe Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

PRACTICE COURT

No. 16976 of 2009

In the matter of the Will and Estate of Mary Margaret Rupe:
Application by Charles Arthur Rupe

Plaintiff

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 March 2010
DATE OF RULING:	31 March 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	In the Will and Estate of Mary Margaret Rupe
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 142

---

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE – Applicant seeking letters of administration on intestacy of deceased’s estate - Wills Act 1997 ss 9, 12

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms C. Sparke	Duffy and Simon Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Charles Arthur Rupe, is the only son of the deceased, Mary Margaret Rupe. The deceased died on 4 December 2008 and her son now seeks letters of administration on intestacy of her estate.

He submits that his mother died without a valid will by reason of an informal letter of revocation signed by her with the intention of revoking her last formal will.

The parties who will be affected by the order are the plaintiff's two children who were beneficiaries of the will which the deceased intended to revoke. Both these parties consent to the orders which are now sought.

The deceased's last will, dated 4 October 2003, left her estate to the plaintiff's two children who were the deceased's only grandchildren. The will contained a revocation clause revoking earlier wills. Nearly two years after executing the October 2003 will, the deceased executed a letter dated 16 May 2005 which stated, after enclosing a copy of an earlier will made in 1987:

Please revoke any will made after this date, thanking you.

The letter was signed by the deceased but in the absence of witnesses.

The letter was sent, after a conversation with a solicitor to the effect that the deceased should send in a letter stating her intention to revoke her old wills. The conversation was the subject of a file note and was followed by a letter of 6 May 2005 by the solicitor to the deceased which stated in part:

We confirm that you will provide us with a copy of your 1987 Will, together with a note signed and dated instructing us to revoke any subsequent Wills made after the 1987 Will. We will then keep this on file and in our Deeds office for our records.

A will may be revoked in the ways set out in s 12 of the Wills Act 1997. In particular it may be revoked in consequence of an order of this Court dispensing with the formal requirements for revocation of a will.

In the present case I am satisfied that the letter of revocation meets the requirements set out in s 9 of the Wills Act for dispensation in respect of the circumstances of its execution. First, it constitutes a document written by the deceased. Secondly, it plainly purports to record the testamentary wishes of the deceased and thirdly, I am satisfied it was intended, without anything more, to operate as a testamentary document revoking the deceased's last made will in accordance with the terms of the letter. The evidence relating to the context of the letter completes this view.

I therefore propose to order, firstly, that the formal requirements for revoking a will are dispensed with in relation to a letter signed by the deceased and dated 16 May 2005 and secondly, that letters of administration on intestacy of the Estate of the above named Mary Margaret Rupe (deceased) be granted to Charles Arthur Rupe of 5 Witton Street, Longwarry, who is a Victorian farmer, the son of the deceased and the person entitled to take on intestacy. Thirdly, I will direct that this order be signed by the judge pursuant to rule 60.04 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

The application was brought before the Supreme Court of Queensland by one of the deceased's daughters, who sought letters of administration on the intestacy of her mother's estate. The deceased, Mary Margaret Rupe, had passed away leaving no valid will. The applicant contended that she was the rightful heir to administer the estate as per the Wills Act 1997. The court was tasked with determining the legitimacy of the applicant's claim to the administration of the estate, considering the absence of a valid will and the potential eligibility of other family members.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant had established herself as the appropriate person to administer the deceased's estate under the Wills Act 1997. This required the court to examine the provisions of sections 9 and 12 of the Act, which outline the criteria for granting letters of administration. The court needed to assess the applicant's eligibility, as well as any competing claims from other potential administrators, such as the other daughter who had also expressed an interest in administering the estate.

The court reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties and concluded that the applicant had met the necessary criteria to be granted letters of administration. The court found that the applicant was the closest relative of the deceased and had provided sufficient evidence to support her claim. The court also noted that the other daughter's interest in administering the estate did not outweigh the applicant's claim. As a result, the court granted the applicant letters of administration on the intestacy of the deceased's estate.

The final orders of the court were that letters of administration on the intestacy of the deceased's estate be granted to the applicant, with the authority to deal with the estate as necessary. The court further directed that the applicant should act in accordance with the provisions of the Wills Act 1997 and any other relevant legislation. The other daughter's interest in administering the estate was dismissed, and the applicant was instructed to provide a bond as required by the Act.

In the Will and Estate of Mary Margaret Rupe

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established