Rimbas v Paganis

Case [2025] VSC 323


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE LIST

S ECI 2024 01869

IN THE MATTER of the estate of DIMITRIOS RIMBAS, deceased

- and -

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

BETWEEN:

MARIA RIMBAS Plaintiff
v 
KATINA PAGANIS
(in her capacity as Administrator of the Estate of DIMITRIOS RIMBAS)
Defendant

---

JUDGE:

Ierodiaconou AsJ

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

19, 20, 21 February 2025, 6 March 2025

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

6 June 2025

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Rimbas v Paganis

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2025] VSC 323

---

TESTATORS FAMILY MAINTENANCE – Application for a family provision order under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) by adult daughter – Where deceased died intestate – Where estate to be equally divided between two adult daughters – Where plaintiff lived in the deceased’s property for majority of her life – Whether equal division of the estate adequately provides for the plaintiff’s proper maintenance and support – Application dismissed – Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) ss 90A, 91, 91A.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
The Plaintiff in person
For the Defendant Mr C Northrup Kiatos & Co

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1

Brief factual background...................................................................................................................... 2

Procedural background........................................................................................................................ 2

Assets and liabilities of the estate........................................................................................................ 3

Witness evidence at trial....................................................................................................................... 4

Maria................................................................................................................................................ 4

Failure to produce documents relevant to the issues in dispute........................................... 4

Evidence of Maria’s financial situation.................................................................................. 6

Distribution of the deceased’s cash...................................................................................... 11

Warrick Tobin....................................................................................................................... 11

Contribution to the household............................................................................................. 12

Caring responsibilities.......................................................................................................... 14

Katina’s relationship with the deceased.............................................................................. 14

Maria’s animosity towards Katina, John and other witnesses............................................. 15

Deceased’s intentions regarding the property..................................................................... 18

Family cemetery plots.......................................................................................................... 19

Katina............................................................................................................................................. 19

Relationship with the deceased and Stavroula.................................................................... 19

The declining health of Stavroula........................................................................................ 20

The declining health of the deceased................................................................................... 20

Specific points of dispute..................................................................................................... 21

Financial and personal circumstances.................................................................................. 22

Kerry.............................................................................................................................................. 24

Ilias................................................................................................................................................. 24

Sophia............................................................................................................................................ 25

Assessment of witness evidence.................................................................................................... 26

Applicable legal principles................................................................................................................ 27

Submissions........................................................................................................................................ 31

Maria’s submissions....................................................................................................................... 31

Financial and personal circumstances.................................................................................. 32

Deceased’s moral duty and intentions................................................................................. 33

Contribution to caring for the deceased and Stavroula....................................................... 33

Katina’s submissions..................................................................................................................... 33

Criticisms of Maria’s evidence and motivations.................................................................. 33

Application of the evidence to the relevant legislative requirements................................. 35

Threshold requirement for family provision order is not met......................................................... 38

Family provision order should not be made..................................................................................... 40

Relationship between the deceased and Maria............................................................................. 40

Obligations or responsibilities of the deceased, and any benefits given by him; whether he maintained Maria, and any liability to do so.................................................................................................... 40

Size and nature of the estate.......................................................................................................... 41

Financial resources, including earning capacity, of beneficiaries................................................. 41

Disability of any beneficiary.......................................................................................................... 41

Maria’s age..................................................................................................................................... 41

Any contribution (not for adequate consideration) by Maria....................................................... 41

Effects of family provision order on Katina.................................................................................. 42

Character and conduct of Maria, and other matters..................................................................... 42

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................... 42

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. The plaintiff, Maria Rimbas, seeks further provision from the estate of her late father, Dimitrios Rimbas…

Continue reading Rimbas v Paganis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Rimbas v Paganis [2025] VSC 323
Case
[2025] VSC 323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rimbas v Paganis involved the application by an adult daughter for a family provision order under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), seeking greater provision than what she would receive under the intestate succession provisions. The deceased, who died without a will, left an estate to be equally divided between the applicant and her sister. The applicant argued that the equal division did not adequately provide for her proper maintenance and support, considering she had lived in the deceased's property for most of her life.

The primary legal issue was whether the equal division of the estate met the requirements for proper maintenance and support under the statute. This involved assessing the applicant's contributions to the deceased's welfare and the overall circumstances of the case, including the applicant's long-term residence in the deceased's home. The court had to balance these factors against the statutory framework that generally directs equal division of an estate among children.

The court found that the equal division of the estate was sufficient to provide for the applicant's maintenance and support. It noted the applicant's long-term residence in the deceased's home but also considered the absence of direct financial contributions to the deceased. The court emphasised the statutory presumption of equal division and the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant a departure from this principle. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court's decision underscored the importance of the statutory framework in family provision applications and the high threshold for departing from equal division. The final orders reflected the court's determination that the estate, divided equally, adequately provided for the applicant's maintenance and support.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.