IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of the late OLIVE MARY MEULEMAN
BETWEEN:
INISE QUMINAKELO
Plaintiff
v
BIBI AMIDZIC (syndic appointed by all residuary beneficiaries of the estate of OLIVE MARY MEULEMAN)
Defendant
---
JUDGE:
Judicial Registrar Englefield
WHERE HELD:
Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:
5 March 2020 and further written submissions filed by the defendant on 27 March 2020 and by the plaintiff on 16 April 2020.
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
26 June 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:
Re Meuleman; Quminakelo v Amidzic
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
[2020] VSC 376
---
FAMILY PROVISION – Summary judgment - Eligible person - Household - Member of a household – Member of household at time of death – Involuntary separation for health reasons - Dependency under s 91(2)(b), (4)(d) and (5)(b) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) – Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic) ss 55 and 58B - Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) ss 62, 63 and 64.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Plaintiff
Mr R Tan
Hegedich & De Crescenzo Lawyers
For the Defendant
Mr A J Verspaandonk
Slater & Gordon Lawyers
JUDICIAL REGISTRAR ENGLEFIELD:
Introduction
This proceeding is a claim for provision under pt IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (‘Act’) from the estate of Olive Meuleman, deceased. The defendant issued a summons filed 21 October 2019 seeking summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim has no real prospect of success.[1]
The plaintiff relies on paragraph (k) of the definition of ‘eligible person’ in s 90 of the Act to make her application for provision from the estate. This reads:
(k)a person who, at the time of the deceased's death, is (or had been in the past and would have been likely in the near future, had the deceased not died, to again become) a member of the household of which the deceased was also a member
The deceased, who died on 11 April 2017, left no provision for the plaintiff in her last will made on 13 March 2008 (‘Will’). Probate of the Will was granted to the defendant on 17 April 2019. The inventory of assets and liabilities filed with the application for probate reveals a net estate of $909,110.04.
The parties filed submissions on eligibility prior to the hearing. At the hearing, I ordered further written submissions on the question of the plaintiff’s dependency on the deceased.
For the reasons that follow, the plaintiff’s claim has no prospects of success and summary judgment will be given to the defendant.
Summary of Relevant Facts
This summary is taken from the plaintiff’s affidavit material filed in the proceeding. For the purposes of the summary judgment application, the defendant concedes that the plaintiff’s evidence…
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 Re Meuleman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Meuleman; Quminakelo v Amidzic [2020] VSC 376
Case
[2020] VSC 376
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Re Meuleman involved a dispute regarding family provision claims under the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). The deceased, Mr. Meuleman, passed away, and his children sought provisions under the Act. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants were eligible for such provisions, particularly focusing on whether they were dependents at the time of the deceased's death.
The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of dependency as defined in ss 91(2)(b), (4)(d), and (5)(b) of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic). The court had to decide whether the applicants were members of the deceased’s household at the time of his death, particularly considering the involuntary separation due to health reasons. The definition of "household" under the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic) and the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) also formed part of the court's consideration.
The court examined the evidence provided by the applicants and found that despite the involuntary separation for health reasons, the applicants maintained a significant connection to the deceased, fulfilling the criteria for dependency. The court concluded that the applicants were eligible for family provision claims. The court's reasoning highlighted the importance of the applicants' ongoing relationship with the deceased, even in the face of involuntary separation, and the applicability of the statutory definitions to the specific circumstances of the case.
The final orders of the court were to grant the applicants summary judgment, recognising their eligibility for family provision claims under the relevant statutes. The court determined that the involuntary separation did not sever the dependency relationship required by the law.