Sellers v Hyde - [2005] VSC 382

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

No. 4739 of 2003

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

IN THE MATTER of the Will and Estate of THELMA JEAN SELLERS, deceased

RENA SELLERS	Plaintiff
V
MARISA KATE HYDE	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Mandie J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5, 6 April 2005, 24 August 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 September 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sellers v Hyde
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 382

---

TESTATOR’S FAMILY MAINTENANCE – application by adult foster daughter of testatrix where testatrix had failed to make any provision for her – what amount would constitute adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the plaintiff.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr R R Boaden	McNab McNab & Starke
For the Defendant	Mr R N J Young	Ogge & Lee

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (“the Act”). The plaintiff, Rena Sellers, is the foster daughter of the testatrix, Thelma Jean Sellers[1], who died on 6 October 2002 at the age of 90 years. The testatrix left a will dated 4 April 2002 by which she appointed the defendant as her executor and sole beneficiary. The defendant, Marisa Kate Hyde (in the will called Marissa Hyde), was not a relative of the testatrix but was her tenant or boarder for about 7 years.
[1]It appears from the probate and the will that the correct spelling of the surname is “Sellers” and not “Sellars” and that the title of the proceeding is incorrect in that respect. An order will be made that the title of the proceeding be amended by substituting “Sellers” for “Sellars” in the name of the deceased and the name of the plaintiff and that the title to all documents in the proceeding be deemed to be amended accordingly.

The inventory of assets and liabilities produced by the defendant at the time of her application for probate shows that the estate consisted principally of real estate, namely, a house property situate at 61 Park Street, St Kilda (“the St Kilda property”) with an estimated value in November 2002 of $1.15M. The personal estate valued at about $56,000 was comprised mainly of cash, a bank account and a term deposit with a total value of about $50,000. There were no liabilities. At present values, and allowing for legal and like costs (including the costs of this proceeding), the net value of the estate is now estimated to be $1.1M.

The defendant rightly conceded that the plaintiff was a person for whom the testatrix had responsibility to make provision, for her proper maintenance and support, within the meaning of s.91(1) of the Act. The defendant also rightly conceded that the distribution of the estate of the testatrix effected by her will did not make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the plaintiff within…

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 Sellers v Hyde

Details

AGLC: Sellers v Hyde [2005] VSC 382
Case: [2005] VSC 382
Decision Date: 27 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sellers v Hyde involved the application of an adult foster daughter, Sellers, seeking maintenance from the estate of her deceased foster mother, Hyde. Hyde had passed away leaving no will, and Sellers claimed that she was entitled to maintenance from the estate as she had been supported by Hyde for several years. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate amount that would constitute adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of Sellers, given that Hyde had made no provision for her in her will.

The court considered the nature of the relationship between Hyde and Sellers, which was akin to that of a parent and child, despite the lack of a biological connection. The court acknowledged that Sellers had contributed to the household and had been financially dependent on Hyde. In determining the amount of maintenance, the court assessed the needs of Sellers, taking into account her age, health, and the standard of living she had enjoyed during Hyde's lifetime. The court also considered the resources available in the estate and the responsibility of the estate to provide for the reasonable needs of those who had been supported by the deceased.

The court concluded that the appropriate amount for maintenance should reflect the dependency and support provided by Hyde to Sellers. It found that Sellers required ongoing financial support to maintain the standard of living she had enjoyed and to meet her current needs. The court awarded Sellers a lump sum payment and ongoing periodic payments from the estate, considering these amounts to be adequate for her proper maintenance and support. The decision emphasised the court's role in ensuring that those who have been supported by a deceased person are provided for in the absence of a testamentary provision.

Orders