Napolitano v State Trustees Ltd - [2012] VSC 345

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

S CI 2012 0893

IN THE MATTER of the will and estate of Luigi Cursio, deceased

– and –

IN THE MATTER of an application for provision under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958

B E T W E E N:

ANTOINE NAPOLITANO	Plaintiff
– and –
STATE TRUSTEES LIMITED (in its capacity as the executor of the estate of Luigi Cursio, deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	MUKHTAR AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 August 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Napolitano v State Trustees Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 345

---

ADMINISTRATION AND PROBATE – Testator’s family maintenance – Claim by testator’s nephew by marriage – Executor’s application for summary judgment – No dispute on the plaintiff’s evidence – Whether evidence discloses any moral responsibility to make provision – Whether claim for further provision bound to fail or has no reasonable prospects of success – Summary judgment granted – Rules of the Supreme Court Order 23 – Civil Procedure Act (No 47 of 2010) section 63, 64.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff:	Mr C. Johnson	John Pastro & Co
For the Defendant:	Mr J. Smith	State Trustees Limited

HIS HONOUR:

Luigi Cursio died on 6 April 2011, aged 78. He died a widower, having been married to Anna Cursio (previously Napolitano). She died on 30 December 2007. By her will had given all to Luigi. They were childless. Anna’s younger sister by ten years is Michelle Murphy (formerly Napolitano) born on 25 February 1957. The plaintiff, Antoine Napolitano, is Michelle’s son, which means he is a nephew by marriage of Luigi Cursio. He is 33 years old and has had a troubled life.

By his will made in August 2010, Luigi left half of his residuary estate to Anna’s brother, John Napolitano or to his children if John predeceased him. He left the other half to Giuseppe Villano, described in the will as his second cousin or to his children if Giuseppe pre-deceased him.

The estate has a gross value of $1 506 917 and a small liability of $92. The assets are constituted by the matrimonial home in Reservoir valued at $480 000 and a personal estate of $1 026 917. That latter amount includes $646 000 as his interest in the estate of his deceased mother, Celestina Cursio, who died in December 2010 not long before Luigi. The executor says that bequest is yet to be distributed.

The plaintiff has sued the executor under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act claiming that his uncle had a responsibility to make provision under his will for his proper maintenance and support. He asks the Court to order that provision be made for him. Typical procedural orders have been made for the conduct of the trial to be by way of affidavit. To that end, the plaintiff has sworn an affidavit on…

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 Napolitano v State Trustees Ltd

Details

AGLC: Napolitano v State Trustees Ltd [2012] VSC 345
Case: [2012] VSC 345
Decision Date: 15 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Napolitano v State Trustees Ltd involved a claim by a testator’s nephew by marriage, seeking further maintenance beyond what was already provided for by the will. The defendant, State Trustees Ltd, applied for summary judgment based on the assertion that the plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospects of success. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff argued that the will did not sufficiently provide for his needs, while the defendant maintained that the existing provisions were adequate and that no further provision was necessary.

The court needed to decide whether there was any moral responsibility on the part of the testator to make further provision for the plaintiff and if the claim was bound to fail or had no reasonable prospects of success. This required an examination of the evidence provided by the plaintiff and an assessment of the existing provisions within the will. The court also had to consider the provisions of the Rules of the Supreme Court Order 23 and sections 63 and 64 of the Civil Procedure Act (No 47 of 2010) to determine the appropriate application of summary judgment in this context.

After evaluating the evidence and the legal framework, the court concluded that there was no moral responsibility on the part of the testator to make further provision for the plaintiff. The existing provisions were deemed adequate, and the plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the court granted the defendant's application for summary judgment. The court’s decision was grounded in the plaintiff’s inability to demonstrate that the existing provisions were insufficient, combined with the statutory provisions guiding the granting of summary judgment.

Orders