Penn v Richards - [2002] VSC 378

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION

No. 5238 of 2001

IN THE MATTER of Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958
- and –

IN THE MATTER of the Estate of PHYLLIS MAUD PENN late of 4 Penn Street, North Balwyn, deceased

RAELENE PATRICIA PENN	Plaintiff
v
PATRICIA JUNE RICHARDS (who is sued as Executrix of the Will and Codicil of the abovenamed deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Ashley
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 September 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 September 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Penn v Richards
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 378

---

Administration and probate – family provision – whether testatrix failed to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of an estranged adult daughter suffering ill-health and financial hardship – amount of further provision.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr G. Baker	John R. Buman & Co
For the Defendant	Mr R. Boaden	Moores Legal

HIS HONOUR:

This is a claim for family provision made under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 by the 53 year old adopted daughter of the late Phyllis Maud Penn and the late Ernest Penn. Provision is sought out of the estate of the late Mrs Penn, who died on 21 December 2000 aged 84, leaving a will dated 25 November 1986 and a codicil dated 9 August 1990.

The defendant executrix is the sister of the deceased.

The will and codicil, considered together,

§ give a pecuniary legacy of $20,000.00 to the plaintiff;
§ give a property situate at 4 Penn St, North Balwyn to the defendant and her husband;
§ leave the deceased's residuary estate to the defendant's three children in equal shares.

At the time of Mrs Penn's death the assets of the estate consisted of:

§ the property at 4 Penn St, North Balwyn;
§ debentures and bonds;
§ money at bank;
§ debts owed;
§ a life insurance policy; and
§ furniture and household effects.

According to the defendant's affidavit sworn 23 August 2002, which was uncontradicted, the present value of the net assets of the estate is $517,282.24. Of that amount $4,870.00 is a debt owed by the plaintiff to the estate for the purchase of furniture from the Penn St property, which was sold in January 2002; and $2,700.00 is a debt owed by a Bill Tutton to the estate. The latter debt may be thought to be uncertain of recovery.

As the matter was argued orally, Mr Boaden of Counsel for the defendant conceded that, although the testatrix might be thought to have "got it right", further provision should be made for the plaintiff by reason of her particular and profound needs. He submitted that provision should be made of an amount to enable the plaintiff to purchase a home in the Bendigo area[1] and to enable her to meet the debt which she presently has to the estate. In all, he submitted,…

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 Penn v Richards

Details

AGLC: Penn v Richards [2002] VSC 378
Case: [2002] VSC 378
Decision Date: 6 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Penn v Richards, the dispute involved the estate of a deceased person, with the plaintiff, Ms Penn, claiming that the executor, Mr Richards, had failed to make adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. Ms Penn is the estranged daughter of the deceased, who had allegedly neglected her during her lifetime. The court was tasked with determining whether the deceased's will sufficiently provided for Ms Penn's maintenance and support, considering her ill-health and financial hardship, and if not, the amount of additional provision required.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the interpretation and application of the Family Provision Act. The court had to consider the deceased's intentions as expressed in the will, the nature and extent of the relationship between the deceased and Ms Penn, and the circumstances of Ms Penn's ill-health and financial hardship. The court was also required to assess whether the provision made in the will was adequate and, if not, to determine the appropriate amount of additional provision that should be made from the estate.

The court found that the deceased had not made adequate provision for Ms Penn's proper maintenance and support. The evidence demonstrated that the deceased had not only neglected Ms Penn during her lifetime but had also made minimal provision for her in the will. Considering Ms Penn's ill-health and financial hardship, the court concluded that the provision made in the will was insufficient. The court ordered that an additional amount be paid to Ms Penn from the estate to ensure her proper maintenance and support. This decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory criteria and the specific circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court included a determination that the executor should provide Ms Penn with a specified sum from the estate to adequately address her maintenance and support needs. The court also ordered that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the executor.

Orders