Legal Research
Cases
Steinmetz v Shannon

Steinmetz v Shannon

Case [2018] NSWSC 1090 16 July 2018

Family Provision

Testamentary Freedom

Succession Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Steinmetz v Shannon [2018] NSWSC 1090
Hearing dates: 10 July 2018
Date of orders: 16 July 2018
Decision date: 16 July 2018
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Pembroke J
Decision:
Claim dismissed with costs

Catchwords: SUCCESSION – family provision – claim by second wife – no general rule that widow’s claim is paramount
FAMILY PROVISION – indexed annuity for widow – adequate for proper maintenance
FAMILY PROVISION – respect for judgment of capable testator – freedom of testamentary disposition
Legislation Cited: Succession Act, 2006 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170
Coates v National Trustees Executors & Agency Co Ltd
Estate of Bridges (1975) 12 SASR1
Gardiner v Gardiner (unreported) 28 May 1998
Golosky v Golosky [1993] NSWCA 111
Grey v Harrison [1997] 2 VR 359
Handley v Walker (1903) 22 NZLR 932
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65
Madden-Smith v Madden [2012] NSWSC 146
Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47
Sayer v The Public Trustee [2009] NSWSC 89
Sgro v Thompson [2017] NSWCA 326
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
Slack v Rogan (2013) 85 NSWLR 253; [2013] NSWSC 522
Stott v Cook (1960) 33 ALJR 447
Tchadovitch v Tchadovitch [2010] NSWCA 316
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 221 CLR 191
Will of Gilbert (1946) 46 SR (NSW) 318
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Gayle Maria Warr Steinmetz – plaintiff
Nicole Shannon – first defendant
James Steinmetz – second defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr L Ellison SC – for the plaintiff
Mr R Wilson SC – for the first and second defendants
Solicitors:
Diamond Conway – for the plaintiff
Tony Cox Lawyers – for the first and second defendants

File Number(s): 2017/286890

Judgment

Introduction

The plaintiff is the second wife of the deceased (Geoffrey Leslie Steinmetz). Their relationship originated in 1988 but they did not marry until 2011 and he died in 2016. She is dissatisfied with the provision made for her in her husband’s will. The will, which was executed a few weeks before the death of the deceased, left the bulk of his estate to the two children of his first marriage (the defendants), subject to the payment of an indexed annuity of $52,000 per annum to the plaintiff.
The deceased undoubtedly knew that the plaintiff also had her own home, other assets and additional income. His will contained, as well as the provisions made for his children and wife, the following formal statement:

8. It is my express wish that my Estate remains a whole for my children and grandchildren. I have drafted my Last Will and Testament in the above manner as I believe that it enables my wife to live comfortably for the rest of her life without having to dispose of the assets that I have worked my whole life for.

In addition, the deceased sought and obtained the plaintiff’s concurrence to the terms of his will. Only when that approval was obtained, did he execute the will. The plaintiff’s counsel now contends that I…

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 Steinmetz v Shannon

Details

AGLC: Steinmetz v Shannon [2018] NSWSC 1090
Case: [2018] NSWSC 1090
Decision Date: 16 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Steinmetz v Shannon, the dispute arose from the interpretation and application of family provision claims under the Succession Act 2006 (Qld) concerning the estate of the deceased, Mr Steinmetz. The widow of the deceased, Shannon, filed a claim against the estate, contending that her needs were not adequately provided for by the will. The deceased's second wife, who had been married to him for a short period before his death, also filed a claim, asserting that the provisions made for her were insufficient. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the second wife's claim should prevail over the widow's, given the statutory provisions and the court's discretion to make orders for the proper provision for family members. The court was required to determine whether there was any general rule that a widow's claim was paramount and to assess whether the indexed annuity provided to the widow was adequate for her proper maintenance. Additionally, the court needed to respect the testator's judgment and freedom of testamentary disposition while considering the competing claims.

The court concluded that there was no general rule that a widow's claim is paramount in family provision disputes. It held that the court has discretion to consider the adequacy of provision made for each applicant and to balance the competing interests. In assessing the widow's claim, the court found that the indexed annuity provided to her was adequate for her proper maintenance. Consequently, the court rejected the second wife's claim, affirming the testator's judgment and testamentary freedom. The court's decision underscored the importance of respecting the testator's wishes, provided they are reasonable and just, and the need to balance the competing interests of the family members involved.

The final orders of the court were that the widow's claim was dismissed, and the second wife's claim was rejected. The estate was to be distributed according to the terms of the deceased's will, with the indexed annuity remaining as the provision for the widow.

Orders