Strojczyk v Kopycinzki - [2006] NSWSC 589

CITATION: Strojczyk v Kopycinzki [2006] NSWSC 589

HEARING DATE(S): 27 January 2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
16 June 2006

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Associate Justice McLaughlin at 1

DECISION: I stand the matter over to a date to be fixed by arrangement with my Associate for the bringing in of short minutes to reflect the foregoing proposed orders.

CATCHWORDS: Succession. Family Provision. Claim by elderly widower. Marriage of almost eighteen years. Financial and material circumstances of the Plaintiff. Whether Plaintiff has been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance. Need of Plaintiff for accommodation. Competing claims of Deceased's children (who are chief objects of her testamentary beneficence).

LEGISLATION CITED: Family Provision Act 1982

CASES CITED: Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) 79 ALJR 731

PARTIES: Henryk Strojczky (Plaintiff)
Eva Kopycinzki (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1226 of 2005

COUNSEL: Mr. L. Ellison SC (Plaintiff)
Mr. C. M. Simpson (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Doherty Partners (Plaintiff)
Philip Goldman & Co (Defendant)

- 14 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE McLAUGHLIN

Friday, 16 June 2006

1226 of 2005 HENRYK STROJCZYK –v- EVA KOPYCINZKI

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These are proceedings under the Family Provision Act 1982.

2 By summons filed on 27 January 2005 Henryk Stojczyk claims an order for provision for his maintenance and advancement in life out of the estate and/or notional estate of his late wife Gladys Strojczyk (also known as Gladys Bush) (to whom I shall refer as “the Deceased”).

3 The Deceased died on 23 July 2003, aged 77. She left a will dated 21 March 2000, probate whereof was on 7 October 2003 granted to Eva Kopycinski, the executor named in such will (who is the Defendant to the present proceedings).

4 The Plaintiff and the Deceased married on 2 November 1985. Each of them had previously been married (the Deceased had been twice widowed), and each had adult children, who were no longer dependent upon them. No children were born to the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Deceased.

5 By her will the Deceased gave to the Plaintiff a legacy of $10,000, as well as her household furniture (which phrase included certain specified chattels). She gave the residue of her estate to her three children Roman Busz, Henryk Bush and Eva Kopycinski in equal shares.

6 The inventory of property discloses the assets of the Deceased, together with the estimated values thereof, as follows,

Unit 2, 18-20 Norfolk Street, Liverpool - $330,000

Commonwealth Bank savings account - $26,021

Furniture and contents - $2,000

Jewellery - $5,000

7 The inventory of property also discloses a Commonwealth Bank savings account held jointly with the Plaintiff (having a nominal credit balance), and a Ford Laser motor vehicle, also owned jointly with the Plaintiff, having an estimated value of $1,000.

8 At the outset of the proceedings it was noted that the home unit at 2/18-20 Norfolk Street, Liverpool (to which I shall refer as “the Liverpool…

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 Strojczyk v Kopycinzki

Details

AGLC: Strojczyk v Kopycinzki [2006] NSWSC 589
Case: [2006] NSWSC 589
Decision Date: 16 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Strojczyk v Kopycinzki involved a dispute over the estate of a deceased individual, with the widower, Mr Strojczyk, seeking provisions under the Family Provision Act. The court was asked to determine whether Mr Strojczyk, who had been married to the deceased for nearly eighteen years, had been left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance. This assessment considered his financial and material circumstances, as well as his need for accommodation. The central issue was whether Mr Strojczyk's claim was justified against the competing interests of the deceased's children, who were the primary beneficiaries of her estate.

The court needed to consider the nature and extent of the deceased's testamentary provisions for Mr Strojczyk, as well as the competing claims of the children. This involved a careful examination of the deceased's will and the financial needs of all parties involved. The court also needed to determine whether the deceased's provisions for Mr Strojczyk were just and equitable in light of the statutory criteria set out in the Family Provision Act. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the deceased's decision to leave the bulk of her estate to her children was reasonable and whether Mr Strojczyk's needs were adequately met by the provisions made for him.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the lengthy duration of Mr Strojczyk's marriage to the deceased and his reliance on her for support. However, the court also acknowledged the deceased's right to dispose of her estate as she saw fit, subject to the provisions of the Family Provision Act. After considering the evidence and the statutory criteria, the court found that the deceased's provisions for Mr Strojczyk were adequate and that his financial and material circumstances did not warrant a variation of the will. The court determined that the deceased's decision to leave the majority of her estate to her children was reasonable, taking into account their status as the primary beneficiaries of her testamentary beneficence.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Strojczyk's claim for additional provisions under the Family Provision Act was dismissed. The court upheld the deceased's will as it stood, and no variation was ordered in favour of Mr Strojczyk. The children, as the primary beneficiaries, were to receive the estate as per the deceased's wishes.

Orders