Marando v Rizzo
Case
•
[2012] NSWSC 739
•05 July 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marando v Rizzo [2012] NSWSC 739
[2012] NSWSC 739
05 July 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Marando v Rizzo was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Marando, sought a family provision order from the estate of her deceased father, Rizzo, who was survived by his de jure wife, the defendant. The central dispute was whether Marando was eligible for a family provision order and if the circumstances warranted such an order. The deceased had executed a will before his death, which granted probate to the defendant. The court was tasked with determining the eligibility of Marando for a family provision order and the factors that should be considered in making such a decision.
The court examined several key issues, including the testamentary intentions of the deceased, whether Marando had been maintained by him before his death, and the conduct of Marando and others relevant to the application. The deceased had expressed a desire to ensure his children received his estate, yet there was no evidence that Marando was maintained by him, except for the provision of accommodation without rent. The court also considered Marando's conduct, including her actions regarding the deceased's mother and employer, and whether any other persons had a liability to support her. Ultimately, the court needed to decide whether a family provision order should be granted and, if so, the nature of such an order.
In its reasoning, the court found that Marando was not being maintained by the deceased before his death, apart from accommodation, and that there were no other persons liable to support her beyond the Commonwealth government. The court assessed Marando's conduct and determined that while it was not exemplary, it did not disentitle her to a family provision order. The deceased's children's conduct was not deemed relevant, and the defendant's conduct was also not considered a factor, except for the fact that Marando stayed with the defendant the night before the deceased's death. The court concluded that a family provision order should be made and ordered that Marando be paid a lump sum of $200,000.
The court examined several key issues, including the testamentary intentions of the deceased, whether Marando had been maintained by him before his death, and the conduct of Marando and others relevant to the application. The deceased had expressed a desire to ensure his children received his estate, yet there was no evidence that Marando was maintained by him, except for the provision of accommodation without rent. The court also considered Marando's conduct, including her actions regarding the deceased's mother and employer, and whether any other persons had a liability to support her. Ultimately, the court needed to decide whether a family provision order should be granted and, if so, the nature of such an order.
In its reasoning, the court found that Marando was not being maintained by the deceased before his death, apart from accommodation, and that there were no other persons liable to support her beyond the Commonwealth government. The court assessed Marando's conduct and determined that while it was not exemplary, it did not disentitle her to a family provision order. The deceased's children's conduct was not deemed relevant, and the defendant's conduct was also not considered a factor, except for the fact that Marando stayed with the defendant the night before the deceased's death. The court concluded that a family provision order should be made and ordered that Marando be paid a lump sum of $200,000.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Succession Law
Legal Concepts
-
Family Provision Order
-
Testamentary Intentions
-
Maintenance
-
Character and Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Marando v Rizzo [2012] NSWSC 739
Most Recent Citation
Lennan v Chao [2025] VSC 220
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat; Yesilhat v Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos
[2017] NSWSC 666
Westwood v Quilty
[2013] NSWSC 109
Mohamed v Mohamed
[2012] NSWSC 852
Cases Cited
48
Statutory Material Cited
8
Herford & Berke (No 2)
[2019] FamCAFC 182
Herford & Berke (No 2)
[2019] FamCAFC 182
Robson v Quijarro
[2009] NSWCA 365