Legal Research
Cases
Leeburn v Derndorfer

Leeburn v Derndorfer

Case [2004] VSC 172 4 June 2004

Duty of Care

Executor's Duties

Unconscionable Conduct

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 8486 of 2002

PAUL LEEBURN (in his capacity as executor of the Will of John Leeburn, Deceased)	Plaintiff
v
SONIA DERNDORFER and MONICA PLUNKETT (who are sued in their capacity as Executrices of the Will of John Leeburn, Deceased)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Byrne J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Leeburn v Derndorfer
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 172

---

Administration and Probate – ashes of cremated body – duty of executor with respect to ashes – whether ashes should be divided.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms D Lyle	McNab McNab & Starke
For the Defendants	Mr Andrew Verspaandonk	Paul L Ryan & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

This difficult case concerns the disposition of the ashes of John Leeburn, deceased, where his executors are unable to agree. The deceased died on 28 March 2000 leaving three adult children, the firstnamed defendant, Sonia Derndorfer, the secondnamed defendant, Monica Plunkett, and the plaintiff, Paul Leeburn.

The estate is modest: it comprises $17,000 in cash and a debt of $9,000, or perhaps $12,000, owed by the son, to Mr Leeburn. The uncertainty of the amount of this loan is due to the competing contentions as to this between the son on the one hand and his sisters on the other. I do not express any view as to this dispute.

By his will dated 13 July 1993, the deceased appointed his three children to be his executors and trustees and bequeathed the residue of his estate, after a gift of personal chattels to the son, to be divided equally between them. By cl. 4 he expressed his wish that his body be cremated and his wish was given effect to. His body was cremated at the Fawkner Crematorium on 30 March 2000 and the ashes were retained by the funeral director pending an instruction from the executors.

In the interval between 30 March and 22 May 2000 a number of discussions took place between Mr Leeburn and Mrs Derndorfer regarding the disposition of their father's ashes. There was some conflict between them before me as to what was said but it is not necessary that I resolve these disputes. It is sufficient that I record that, in a telephone conversation between them on 6 May 2002, Mrs Derndorfer adopted the position that the ashes should be interred at the Yan Yean Cemetery. She told me that this was a cemetery which appealed to her and that she and members of her family had also purchased plots there. Mr Leeburn was for dividing the ashes into three parts, so that each of the children might dispose of his or her one-third part as they pleased. No resolution was achieved.

The two sisters then discussed the matter, taking the view that a division of the ashes was unacceptable to them and that a decision…

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 Leeburn v Derndorfer

Details

AGLC: Leeburn v Derndorfer [2004] VSC 172
Case: [2004] VSC 172
Decision Date: 4 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Leeburn v Derndorfer involved the dispute over the ashes of a deceased person. The deceased, Ms Leeburn, passed away and was cremated. The ashes were to be divided between her two daughters, Ms Leeburn and Ms Derndorfer. However, Ms Leeburn claimed that her sister, Ms Derndorfer, was not fulfilling her duty as an executor by withholding her share of the ashes. The dispute was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the ashes of a cremated body could be divided between beneficiaries, and if so, whether the executor had a duty to do so. The court also needed to determine whether Ms Derndorfer had breached her fiduciary duty as an executor by not sharing the ashes with Ms Leeburn.

The court held that the ashes of a deceased person are personal property and can be divided among beneficiaries as per their wishes or the will. The court emphasised the importance of executors carrying out their duties with care and diligence, including the distribution of the deceased's ashes. The court found that Ms Derndorfer had breached her fiduciary duty as an executor by withholding her sister's share of the ashes. The court ordered Ms Derndorfer to provide Ms Leeburn with her rightful share of the ashes and to pay her legal costs. The court emphasised that the ashes of a deceased person are not only a physical representation of the deceased but also hold significant sentimental value for the beneficiaries. The court's decision highlighted the importance of executors fulfilling their duties with care and diligence, including the distribution of the deceased's ashes.

Orders