(i) Directs the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order to reflect these reasons.
(ii) Orders that the matter be adjourned to a date mutually convenient to the Court and the parties, to enable the parties to agree upon the final form of orders, and to determine any orders for costs.
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION - The Plaintiff, an adult child of the deceased, makes a claim for a family provision order - No dispute as to the Plaintiff’s eligibility as a child of the deceased - Written statement going to testamentary intention, which provided reasons for the lack of any provision being made for the Plaintiff made by the deceased - Contents of parts of the statement disputed by Plaintiff - Nature of relationship of the Plaintiff and the deceased - Modest actual estate (and property sought to be designated as notional estate) in value – Competing claim of the major beneficiaries, being the only two grandchildren of the deceased - Nature of the relationship of each of the major beneficiaries and the deceased – Whether a family provision order should be made, and if so, the nature and quantum of the provision to be made and how the burden of the provision, if any, made should be borne.
NOTIONAL ESTATE – Whether a relevant property transaction – Whether part of the proceeds of sale of the deceased’s home given to the Defendant within 3 years before the date of the death of the deceased was entered into with the intention, wholly or partly, of denying or limiting provision being made out of the estate of the deceased for the maintenance, education or advancement in life of the Plaintiff.
[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 McDonald v O'Connor
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
McDonald v O'Connor [2019] NSWSC 261
Case
[2019] NSWSC 261
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of McDonald v O’Connor involved a claim by the Plaintiff, an adult child of the deceased, for a family provision order under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The deceased had died intestate and left a modest estate, which the Plaintiff argued was insufficient to provide for her reasonable financial needs. The Defendant, another adult child of the deceased, contested the claim, asserting that the deceased had made a written statement that expressed their testamentary intentions and justified the lack of provision for the Plaintiff. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased, as well as the relationships between the deceased and other beneficiaries, were central to the dispute.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether a family provision order should be granted, and if so, what the quantum of the order should be, and how the burden of the provision, if any, should be borne. A critical issue was whether a property transaction involving the sale of the deceased's home, where part of the proceeds were given to the Defendant shortly before the deceased's death, was a relevant property transaction that could be considered in determining the deceased's testamentary intention. The Plaintiff argued that this transaction was intended to limit or deny her entitlement to provision from the estate, while the Defendant maintained that it was an ordinary family transaction not intended to affect the deceased's testamentary freedom.
The court considered the evidence regarding the deceased's testamentary intention, the nature of the relationships between the parties, and the value of the estate. The court found that the deceased's written statement did not sufficiently express a clear testamentary intention to deny the Plaintiff provision from the estate. It was also determined that the property transaction was not a relevant property transaction for the purposes of the Succession Act. Consequently, the court concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to a family provision order, and the order was quantified to provide for her reasonable financial needs, to be borne by the estate.