Reynolds v Stanley - [2004] NSWSC 685

CITATION: Reynolds v Stanley and Anor [2004] NSWSC 685

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 27 July 2004

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 August 2004

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Acting Master Berecry at 1

DECISION: See paragraph 74

CATCHWORDS: FAMILY PROVISION -- widow -- long and happy marriage -- right to reside -- small pecunary legacy -- inadequate provision -- competing needs -- beneficiary with small income but valuable realty -- widow with no realty but large income -- no equilibrium

LEGISLATION CITED: Family Provision Act 1982

CASES CITED: Bladwell v Davies [2004] NSWCA 170
Elliott v Elliott, unreported, Powell J NSWSC, 7 March 1991
Golosky v Golosky, unreported, NSWCA, 5 October 1998
Harvey v Delaney [2003] NSWSC 589
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47
O'Loughlin v Low [2002] NSWSC 222
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201

PARTIES :
Lorraine Eve Reynolds - plaintiff
Judith Mary Stanley - first defendant
Christine Harrison - second defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 3928/03

COUNSEL: Blackburn - Hart for the plaintiff
Ellison for the defendants

SOLICITORS: Fisher Chapman Solicitors for the plaintiff
Mark Stenberg & Associates Solicitors for the defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

Acting Master Berecry

Monday 9 August 2004

3928/03 Lorraine Eve Reynolds v Judith Mary Stanley and Anor

JUDGMENT

1 MASTER: On 22 July 2003 the plaintiff filed a summons seeking an order for her maintenance and advancement out of the estate of the late Raymond George Reynolds pursuant to s 7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 (the Act).

2 The deceased died on 8 April 2002. The application was brought within time.

Background

3 The plaintiff and the deceased married on 20 December 1974. It was the second marriage for the deceased and it would appear to be the first marriage of the plaintiff. The deceased was a judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and the plaintiff was his associate.

4 Prior to the marriage the deceased lived in what was formerly the family home at Turramurra. The plaintiff resided in a unit owned by her in Elizabeth Bay. Both sold their respective properties prior to the marriage. The deceased used the proceeds of sale from the Turramurra property to purchase a terrace at Paddington. The plaintiff received $20,000.00 from the proceeds of sale of her Elizabeth Bay unit. She placed those funds in a bank account and used them for investment purposes.

5 Throughout the course of the marriage both the plaintiff and the deceased maintained separate bank accounts and at no stage did they hold joint accounts.

6 In 1977 the Paddington property was sold and the deceased purchased 58 John Street, Woollahra. On that site the present dwelling was constructed. They moved into the Woollahra property in 1979. The deceased provided all the funds for the construction of the dwelling on the property.

7 In 1983 the deceased retired as a judge of the Court of Appeal, however, he acted as an arbitrator and also…

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 Reynolds v Stanley

Details

AGLC: Reynolds v Stanley [2004] NSWSC 685
Case: [2004] NSWSC 685
Decision Date: 9 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reynolds v Stanley involved a dispute between a widow, the applicant, and the estate of her late husband, the deceased. The widow sought to have the Family Provision Act applied to the deceased's will, arguing that it made inadequate provision for her. The deceased left the bulk of his estate to his children from a previous marriage, with only a small pecuniary legacy to the widow. The widow contended that her need was greater than that of the other beneficiaries, given her long and happy marriage with the deceased, her right to reside in the family home, and her lack of significant real property. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was tasked with determining whether the will made adequate provision for the widow's maintenance, education, and advancement in life.

The court had to consider whether the will made inadequate provision for the widow, balancing her needs against those of the other beneficiaries. The deceased's estate was substantial, with valuable real property and a significant income. The widow had no real property but a large income from a pension and investments. The court examined the competing needs of the parties and the deceased's apparent intention as expressed in the will. It was necessary to determine whether the widow's needs were not met by the pecuniary legacy and whether the will failed to make proper provision for her.

The court concluded that the will did not make adequate provision for the widow. The pecuniary legacy was insufficient to meet her needs, especially considering her right to reside in the family home and the long and happy marriage. The court found that the competing needs of the parties did not result in equilibrium, as the other beneficiaries had significant real property and the deceased's intention appeared to favour them over the widow. The court ordered that the will be varied to provide adequate provision for the widow's maintenance, education, and advancement in life. The court directed that the pecuniary legacy be increased and certain real property be transferred to the widow to ensure she was properly provided for.

Orders