SUCCESSION - wills, probate and administration - construction and effect of testamentary dispositions - probate and letters of administration - testamentary instruments governed by Greek law - the effect of Greek law on the ultimate effect of all of the testamentary instruments executed by the deceased - the revocation of prior wills leaving deceased intestate excepting specific gifts
SUCCESSION - family provision and maintenance - whether family provision orders should be made in favour of two children of the deceased being the second and fourth defendants/cross claimants - whether provision made for two children of the deceased was adequate for their proper maintenance, education or advancement in life - family provision orders made in favour of two children of the deceased
Counsel: A Hill (plaintiff) FFF Salama/L Teoh (first defendant) NCT Bilinsky (third defendant) D Williams (fourth defendant)
Solicitors: First Choice Family Lawyers (plaintiff) Spiro Troussas Principal Lawyer (first defendant) Self represented (second defendant) Whittens McKeough (third defendant) Sharah & Associates (fourth defendant)
File Number(s):
2015/374480
Judgment
These proceedings concern the estate of the late Nicholaos (Nicholas) Kalantzis (the deceased), who died on 26 December 2014 in Greece at the age of 96 years.
Family members
The plaintiff is the deceased's widow, Julia Katramados. Without meaning any disrespect, as is usual in matters of this kind, I will refer to the plaintiff by her first name as Julia, and will refer to the other members of the family in the same way.
As well as being survived by Julia, the deceased was survived by his daughter, Adriana Kalantzis, who is the second defendant, Maria (Mary) Kalantzis, who is the third defendant, and Vasileios Kalantzis (known as Billy), who is the fourth defendant. All of the deceased’s three children were children of the deceased’s first wife, Diamando Kalantzis.
Adriana was formerly married to Mr Vince Hassapis. Despina Hasapis, who is the first defendant, is the niece of Vince Hassapis. (There is no error in the spelling of Vince’s and Despina’s surnames – the differences arose as a result of events that occurred during the course of their migration to Australia, which are not material). Despina was named by the deceased as his executor under a will made in this State on 6 November 2006 (2006 will). Despina obtained probate of the 2006 will, by order of this Court made on 30 March 2015. At the time probate was granted, Despina was not aware that the deceased had made…
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 Katramados v Hasapis
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Katramados v Hasapis [2018] NSWSC 948
Case
[2018] NSWSC 948
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Katramados v Hasapis involved the estate of a deceased person, with the primary dispute concerning the validity and interpretation of various testamentary instruments and the adequacy of provisions made for the deceased's children. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issues revolved around the construction and effect of testamentary dispositions governed by Greek law, the revocation of prior wills, and the adequacy of provisions for the deceased's children under family provision claims.
The court had to determine whether certain wills were validly executed and whether they had effectively revoked prior testamentary instruments, leaving the deceased intestate except for specific gifts. Additionally, the court assessed the adequacy of provisions made for the deceased's children, specifically considering whether family provision orders should be made in favour of two children who argued that the provisions made for them were insufficient for their proper maintenance, education, or advancement in life. The court's analysis involved examining the Greek law applicable to the testamentary instruments, interpreting the intentions of the deceased as expressed in the wills, and applying the principles of family provision under Australian law.
The court concluded that the later wills were validly executed and effectively revoked the earlier wills, leaving the deceased intestate except for specific gifts. It found that the provisions made for the two children were inadequate, and thus, family provision orders were appropriate. The orders required the estate to make specific payments to the children for their maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The court carefully considered the evidence and legal principles to ensure that justice was served according to the intentions of the deceased and the needs of the beneficiaries.