JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 October 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Petrucci v Fields
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 425

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – application by daughter-in-law and grandchildren of deceased – whether deceased testator had responsibility to provide for the proper maintenance and support of widowed daughter-in-law and adult grandchildren – amount of provision.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr G Baker	Thomas Egan
For the Defendant	Mr R Wells	S B Powell & Co

HIS HONOUR:

By originating motion dated 1 May 2003, the plaintiffs seek orders that provision be made for their proper maintenance and support out of the estate of Matteo Petrucci (“the deceased” or “the testator”) who died on 30 August 2002 at the age of 93. The plaintiffs say that they are persons for whom the deceased had responsibility to make provision within the meaning of s.91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (“the Act”).

Part IV of the Act was amended by the Wills Act 1997, which commenced operation on 20 July 1998. The amendments applied to the wills of persons dying after the date of commencement. The Court is only empowered under s.91 of the Act to order that provision be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the proper maintenance and support of a person “for whom the deceased had responsibility to make provision”, and the Court is not to make such an order in favour of such a person unless of the opinion that the distribution of the estate by the will does not make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of such a person.

In determining whether the deceased had responsibility to make provision for a person, the Court is required by s.91(4) of the Act to have regard to a list of specific criteria. The Court must have regard to the same criteria in determining whether or not the distribution made adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the person and also when determining the amount of any provision to be ordered.

It is convenient to extract here the applicable provisions contained in s.91 of the Act:

“91.     Power of the Court to make maintenance order
(1)     Despite anything in this Act to the contrary, the Court may order that provision be made out of the estate of a deceased person for the proper maintenance and support of a person for whom the deceased had responsibility to make provision.
…
(3)     The Court must not make an order…

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 Petrucci v Fields

Details

AGLC: Petrucci v Fields [2004] VSC 425
Case: [2004] VSC 425
Decision Date: 29 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Petrucci v Fields involved an application by the daughter-in-law and grandchildren of the deceased, who sought financial support under the Testator's Family Maintenance and Protection Act 1972 (Vic). The applicant argued that the deceased, who had left a substantial estate, had a responsibility to provide for their proper maintenance and support. The applicants contended that the deceased's estate should be used to meet their financial needs.

The court was tasked with determining whether the deceased had a responsibility to provide for the applicant's maintenance and support, as well as the appropriate amount of financial provision. The court considered the relevant statutory criteria, including the financial resources of the deceased, the needs of the applicants, and the obligations of the deceased towards them. The court also examined the nature of the relationship between the deceased and the applicants, and the extent to which the deceased had provided for their support during his lifetime.

After reviewing the evidence and applying the statutory criteria, the court found that the deceased had a responsibility to provide for the applicants' maintenance and support. The court determined that the applicants' needs were substantial and that the deceased's estate was sufficient to meet those needs. The court ordered that the estate should provide a lump sum payment to the applicants, as well as ongoing payments to cover their living expenses. The court emphasised the importance of the statutory framework in guiding its decision and ensuring that the applicants received appropriate financial support.

Orders