Legal Research
Cases
Sloboda v Crawford

Sloboda v Crawford

Case [2018] NSWSC 483 17 April 2018

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sloboda v Crawford [2018] NSWSC 483
Hearing dates: 16, 17 April 2018
Date of orders: 17 April 2018
Decision date: 17 April 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity - Family Provision List
Before: Kunc J
Decision:
Summons dismissed; Declaration of beneficial ownership made

Catchwords: SUCCESSION — Family provision and maintenance — Circumstances precluding relief — Claim by 64-year-old son in small estate — Sole beneficiary paid for house which was only asset of the estate
Legislation Cited: Duties Act 1997 (NSW)
Succession Act 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Camernik v Reholc [2012] NSWSC 1537
Nelson v Nelson [1995] HCA 25; (1995) 184 CLR 538
Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11; (1998) 193 CLR 72
Verzar v Verzar [2014] NSWCA 45
Warner v Hung, in the matter of Bellpac Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2011] FCA 1123, (2011) 297 ALR 56
West v Mann [2013] NSWSC 1852
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew William Sloboda (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Michael Crawford (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)
Representation:
Counsel:
L Ellison SC
J E Armfield
Solicitors:
Marsdens (Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant)
Dignan & Hanrahan (Defendant/Cross-Claimant)

File Number(s): 2016/349424
Publication restriction: No

EX TEMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

These proceedings concern the estate of the late May Sloboda. Without disrespect, I shall refer to the parties and others by their given names.
The plaintiff, Andrew Sloboda, and the defendant, Michael Crawford, are two of May’s now adult children. May’s estate is small, comprising a modest house at St Andrew’s (“Number 74”). By a will made on 20 October 2005 (the “Will”), May left her entire estate to Michael. Andrew seeks provision from May’s estate under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW) (the “Act”).
Michael has filed a cross-claim for a declaration that Number 74 is beneficially his and therefore forms no part of May’s estate. There was no dispute that Michael paid for Number 74. There was also no dispute that Number 74 was originally in the name of another brother, John, who subsequently transferred it to May.
The essential factual dispute was whether May and her late husband, Marion, had repaid Michael what he had paid for Number 74. Andrew’s case was that they had. Michael denied he had ever been repaid for Number 74.
Andrew’s case relied only on the testimony from him and his ex-wife, Maureen, as to what they say they had been told by May. The Court is not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Michael was ever paid for Number 74 by Marion and May. On the contrary, the Court is satisfied that the Will was the means by which May intended to return Number 74 to Michael as its “true” owner.
Both Michael and Andrew are in poor financial circumstances. However, in this case where it is a small estate and Michael paid for what is the estate’s sole asset, the Court in the exercise of its discretion will not make an order for additional provision for Andrew, notwithstanding that the Will…

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 Sloboda v Crawford

Details

AGLC: Sloboda v Crawford [2018] NSWSC 483
Case: [2018] NSWSC 483
Decision Date: 17 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sloboda v Crawford involved a dispute between a son and the executor of his deceased father's estate. The son sought family provision and maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1975 (NSW), claiming that he had been unfairly excluded from the estate. The estate in question was modest, with the sole asset being a house that the son had paid for. The son argued that he was entitled to further provision from the estate, despite the fact that the house had been gifted to the executor, who was the sole beneficiary of the will. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the son's claim was precluded by the fact that he had already been provided for by the purchase of the house, and whether the executor had acted reasonably and fairly in disposing of the estate. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Family Provision Act and determine whether the son's claim was reasonable and just in the circumstances.

The court found that the son's claim was precluded by the fact that he had already been provided for by the purchase of the house. The court held that the son had received a fair and reasonable benefit from the estate, and that the executor had acted reasonably and fairly in disposing of the estate. The court found that the son's claim was not reasonable and just, and dismissed the application. The court held that the circumstances of the case did not warrant an order for further provision.

In summary, the court found that the son's claim for family provision and maintenance was precluded by the fact that he had already been provided for by the purchase of the house. The court held that the executor had acted reasonably and fairly in disposing of the estate, and that the son's claim was not reasonable and just. The son's application was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders