Szarvas v Tizzano; Muller v Tizzano - [2014] VSC 620

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL & EQUITY DIVISION

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

- and -

IN THE MATTER OF the Will and Estate of IMRE CSUHAI, deceased

S CI 2013 01383

ZSUZSANNA KERNACSNE SZARVAS	Plaintiff
v
KATALIN TIZZANO (who is sued as the Administrator of the Estate of IMRE CSUHAI (deceased))	Defendant

- and -

S CI 2013 03417

JOZSEF MULLER	Plaintiff
v
KATALIN TIZZANO (who is sued as the Administrator of the estate of the above named deceased)	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22 September 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 December 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Szarvas v Tizzano; Muller v Tizzano
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 620 FIRST REVISION: 18 December 2014

---

SUCCESSION LAW – Testator’s family maintenance – Intestacy – Deceased survived by two adult daughters – Application by partner – Application by adult stepson – Nature of relationship between plaintiffs and deceased – Whether plaintiffs persons for whom the deceased had responsibility to make provision – Competing claims against estate of the deceased – Administration and Probate Act 1958 Part IV.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
In S CI 2013 01383:
For the Plaintiff	Mr P Pascoe	Bella & Associates Lawyers
For the Defendant	No appearance
In S CI 2013 03417
For the Plaintiff	Mr R Boaden	Slater and Gordon Lawyers
For the Defendant	No appearance

HER HONOUR:

The claims

The plaintiff in each of the proceedings before the Court claims provision out of the estate of the late Imre Csuhai (‘the deceased’) under Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

As the deceased died intestate, he is taken to have made a ‘fictional will’ to the effect of the Act’s intestacy provisions.[1] Under those provisions, his estate would have been distributed to his two daughters from his first marriage, Katalin Tizzano (‘Katalin’) and her sister Zsuzsanna Csuhai (known as ‘Zsuzsa’).
[1]Re Russell [1970] QWN 22; Iwasivka v State Trustees Ltd [2005] 323, [5] (Hansen J).

The plaintiff in proceeding No 1383 of 2013 is Zsuzsanna Szarvas (‘Zsuzsanna’) who claims to have been the deceased’s domestic partner. She does not contend that she would be entitled to share in the estate under the intestacy provisions as a ‘domestic partner’ and therefore a ‘partner’ within the definition in s 3(1) of the Act.

The plaintiff in proceeding No 3417 of 2013 is the deceased’s stepson, Jozsef Muller (‘Jozsef’).

Katalin, the deceased’s daughter, is the defendant in each case. Letters of administration of the deceased’s estate were granted to her on 4 October 2012.

The proceedings have been heard together and relevant evidence in one was ordered to be evidence in the other. The parties have referred to one another and to other people by their first names throughout and I will do the same.

Katalin was represented in each proceeding by the solicitors Trumble Szanto Lawyers (‘TSL’) up to 25 March…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Szarvas v Tizzano; Muller v Tizzano and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] VSC 620
Decision Date: 11 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Szarvas v Tizzano; Muller v Tizzano involved two plaintiffs, Szarvas and Muller, who sought claims from the estate of a deceased, Tizzano. Both plaintiffs, one being the deceased’s partner and the other his stepson, sought maintenance from the deceased's estate under the Administration and Probate Act 1958. The dispute centred on the nature and extent of the deceased's responsibility to provide for them, and the competing claims against the estate. The court was required to determine whether these plaintiffs were individuals for whom the deceased had a responsibility to make provision under the succession laws.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the deceased had a responsibility to provide for the plaintiffs and if so, the extent of that responsibility. This involved interpreting the statutory provisions regarding testate and intestate succession, specifically section 33 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958, which allows for maintenance of persons for whom the deceased had a responsibility to make provision. The court had to assess the relationship dynamics, the nature of the obligations, and the competing claims against the estate.

The court examined the nature of the relationships between the deceased and the plaintiffs. It determined that while both Szarvas and Muller had close personal relationships with the deceased, the specific nature of their relationship did not automatically impose a legal duty of maintenance. The court focused on whether the deceased had a responsibility to make provision for the plaintiffs, considering the statutory framework and relevant precedents. Ultimately, the court found that neither plaintiff had a claim against the estate for maintenance, as the deceased did not have a responsibility to make provision for them. The court ruled in favour of the executor, dismissing both applications.

The final orders of the court were that the applications by both Szarvas and Muller for maintenance from the deceased’s estate were dismissed. The court held that the deceased did not have a responsibility to make provision for either plaintiff, and therefore, no entitlement to maintenance existed under the Administration and Probate Act 1958.

Orders