Mitchell v McLear - [2020] VSC 25

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TRUSTS, EQUITY & PROBATE LIST

S CI 2017 05156

GARY ERIC MITCHELL	Plaintiff
v
DENNIS WALTER MCLEAR (who is sued in his capacity as the executor of the estate of JOHN MITCHELL, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	McMillan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 February 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mitchell v McLear
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 25

---

WILLS AND ESTATES — Administration of estate — Failure by executor to account or distribute estate to beneficiaries of estate — Orders made for executor to pay the plaintiff his share of the estate with interest and costs.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms U Stanisich	Hentys Lawyers
For the Defendant	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

John Mitchell died on 25 April 2009 leaving a will dated 11 January 2006.

On 4 December 2009, probate of the deceased’s will was granted to the defendant, who is the named executor in the will.

The inventory of the estate’s assets and liabilities filed with the application for a grant of probate recorded the following:

House at 219 Macarthur Street, Sale (‘Sale property’)

$250,000.00

CBA Streamline Account No. 352610296258 (‘streamline account’)

$8,155.40

CBA Term Deposit Account No. 3526501712732 (‘term deposit account’)

$5,000.00

CBA MasterCard Credit Card No. 5353161801633704

($11.72)

Net Estate

$263,143.68

The plaintiff is the son of the deceased. The defendant is the son of the deceased’s second wife. The deceased was married to his third wife, Iris Lillian Mitchell (known as Lillian Mitchell), at the date of his death.

Pursuant to the deceased’s will, the estate was held on trust for sale and the residuary estate divided into four shares to be distributed equally between the plaintiff, the defendant, Lillian Mitchell, and the last share between the deceased’s ten grandchildren as survived the deceased and attain the age of 18 years as tenants in common in equal shares.

At the date of death of the deceased, the plaintiff resided in the United Kingdom. He was not notified of any entitlement under his father’s estate and he assumed the estate was left to the deceased’s third wife.

In January 2017, the plaintiff obtained a copy of the deceased’s will and discovered his entitlement to one quarter of the residue of the estate. No distribution has ever been made to the plaintiff. On 19 December 2017, the plaintiff sought orders that the defendant file a true and just account of the administration of the estate, and pay the sum of $65,785.92 pursuant to the plaintiff’s entitlement under the will and interest in accordance with s 39B of the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

Procedural history

On 31 August 2018, orders were made that by 21 September 2018 the defendant file a true and just account of the administration of the estate in the form prescribed by the Supreme Court (Administration and Probate) Rules 2014, together with all supporting…

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 Mitchell v McLear

Details

AGLC: Mitchell v McLear [2020] VSC 25
Case: [2020] VSC 25
Decision Date: 6 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mitchell brought an action against McLear, the executor of the estate of Mitchell’s deceased mother, alleging that McLear had failed to properly account for or distribute the estate. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Mitchell claimed that as a beneficiary, he was entitled to receive his share of the estate, along with interest and costs, due to McLear's failure to fulfil his duties as executor. The court was tasked with determining whether McLear had indeed failed in his obligations and, if so, what orders should be made to rectify the situation.

The court needed to examine the duties of an executor under the Wills Act 1936 (SA) and consider whether McLear had fulfilled these duties. This involved assessing the evidence provided regarding the estate's accounting and distribution, as well as the communication between McLear and the beneficiaries. The court also had to decide if Mitchell's claims were substantiated and warranted the making of specific orders against McLear.

The court found that McLear had not properly accounted for or distributed the estate as required by law. There was evidence of significant discrepancies in the estate’s accounts and a lack of communication with the beneficiaries. As a result, the court ruled that McLear had failed in his duties as executor. Consequently, Mitchell was awarded his share of the estate, along with interest and costs. The court ordered McLear to pay these amounts to Mitchell within a specified timeframe. This decision aimed to ensure that the estate was distributed according to the terms of the will and the legal obligations of the executor.

Orders