Menczer v Menczer - Estate of Bruinsma; Menczer v Menczer

In the case of Menczer v Menczer - Estate of Bruinsma, the plaintiffs sought to enforce purported agreements with the deceased, Mrs Bruinsma, that she would transfer her interest in certain real property to them upon her death in return for their care of her. The agreements were challenged by the deceased's estate, which included her husband and children, on the basis that the plaintiffs had not made sufficient provision for the deceased's proper maintenance and advancement in life. The court had to determine the validity of the agreements and whether they imposed any restriction on the deceased changing her mind about the transfer of the property. Additionally, the court considered adverse credit findings against the plaintiffs and the performance of a further term in the second agreement, which required the plaintiffs to pay money to the deceased.

The court found that the first agreement was not binding and was superseded by a later agreement. The later agreement was construed to reflect the real possibility that the deceased could change her mind after making the agreement and did not impose an implied restriction on her doing so. The court critically examined the agreements made with the deceased and considered the implications of making such agreements. The court also found that the term in the second agreement requiring the plaintiffs to pay money to the deceased had not been performed, which further undermined the plaintiffs' claim. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the deceased had not made sufficient provision for the plaintiffs' proper maintenance and advancement in life.

Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the property in question. However, the court did award the plaintiffs a lump sum to provide for their proper maintenance and advancement in life. The exact amount was not specified in the decision, but it was noted that the award was made in light of the plaintiffs' failure to perform their obligations under the second agreement. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that agreements made with deceased persons are valid and enforceable, and that all terms of the agreement are performed. Additionally, the decision underscores the need for careful consideration of what is required for a testator to make sufficient provision for their family members, including their proper maintenance and advancement in life.