Yeomans v Yeomans - [2011] QSC 344

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Yeomans v Yeomans & Anor [2011] QSC 344

PARTIES:

ROBYN JOY YEOMANS
(applicant)
v
ROBYN JOY YEOMANS and GREGORY EARLE SMITH (as executors of the will of Gregory Edward Stanley Smith deceased)
(respondents)

FILE NO:

BS899 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

DELIVERED ON:

22 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2011

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

1. That further provision be made for the proper maintenance and support of Robyn Joy Yeomans (the applicant) out of the estate of Gregory Edward Stanley Smith deceased by the transfer to the applicant of the deceased’s interest in the furniture and household chattels that were used by the applicant with the deceased in their Forestdale home and in the Millard Horizon caravan, and the payment of a lump sum of $50,000, and the bequest of a vehicle under the deceased’s will to the applicant should be exonerated from this order.

2. It is directed that the applicant file and serve any written submissions on the issue of costs of the proceeding on or before 30 November 2011 and that the respondent file and serve any submissions on the issue of the costs of the proceeding on or before 6 December 2011.

3. The issue of the costs of the proceeding be determined on the basis of the parties’ written submissions, unless either party gives notice to the other party and to the Associate of Mullins J that a hearing to argue costs is required.

4. Liberty to either party to apply on one day’s notice in writing to the other party.

CATCHWORDS:

SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINENTANCE – FAILURE BY TESTATOR TO MAKE SUFFICIENT PROVISION FOR APPLICANT – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY SPOUSE – where applicant was the de facto partner of the deceased for 23 years until the deceased’s death – where deceased survived by two adult children from his first marriage – where the applicant and the deceased has owned the home in which they resided as tenants in common in equal shares – where the deceased had made a binding death nomination in respect of his superannuation account which resulted in the applicant receiving $43,000 on his death – where the deceased’s adult children were not in needy circumstances at the date of the deceased’s death – where under the deceased’s will the applicant was given only a motor vehicle valued at $38,000 – where the net value of the deceased’s estate at the date of death was about $450,000 – whether applicant left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance – what provision ought to be made for the applicant

Succession Act 1981, s 41

Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170, considered
Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65, considered
Manly v Public Trustee of Qld [2008] QCA 198, considered
Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47, considered
Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201, followed
Vigolo…

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 Yeomans v Yeomans

Details

AGLC: Yeomans v Yeomans [2011] QSC 344
Case: [2011] QSC 344
Decision Date: 22 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeomans v Yeomans was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. Robyn Joy Yeomans, the de facto partner of Gregory Edward Stanley Smith for 23 years, sought a greater provision for her maintenance under the Family Provision Act 1975, claiming she was left with insufficient means for her proper maintenance. The deceased, who had passed away, was survived by two adult children from his first marriage and left an estate valued at approximately $450,000. Despite the applicant and deceased owning their home as tenants in common, and the applicant receiving $43,000 from the deceased’s superannuation account via a binding death nomination, the applicant contended that she was inadequately provided for under the deceased’s will, which bequeathed only a motor vehicle valued at $38,000 to her. The legal issues revolved around whether the applicant was left without sufficient provision for her maintenance and, if so, what provision should be made.

The court examined the nature of the relationship between the applicant and the deceased, the financial circumstances of both parties, and the provisions made under the will. It was determined that the applicant was not in a needy situation, but the court found that the provision made under the will did not adequately reflect the nature and duration of the relationship. The court held that the applicant should be provided with further maintenance and support from the deceased's estate. The decision was that the applicant should receive the deceased's interest in the household furniture and chattels, a lump sum of $50,000, and the motor vehicle bequeathed to her in the will, which was to be exonerated from this order.

In conclusion, the court ordered the transfer of the deceased's interest in the household chattels and a lump sum of $50,000 to the applicant. The court also directed the applicant to file and serve written submissions regarding the costs of the proceeding by a specified date, with the opportunity for the respondent to do the same. The costs were to be determined based on the written submissions, unless a hearing was requested by either party. This decision aimed to provide the applicant with adequate provision for her maintenance while considering the deceased's intentions and the nature of their relationship.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That further provision be made for the proper maintenance and support of Robyn Joy Yeomans (the applicant) out of the estate of Gregory Edward Stanley Smith deceased by the transfer to the applicant of the deceased’s interest in the furniture and household chattels that were used by the applicant with the deceased in their Forestdale home and in the Millard Horizon caravan, and the payment of a lump sum of $50,000, and the bequest of a vehicle under the deceased’s will to the applicant should be exonerated from this order.

2. It is directed that the applicant file and serve any written submissions on the issue of costs of the proceeding on or before 30 November 2011 and that the respondent file and serve any submissions on the issue of the costs of the proceeding on or before 6 December 2011.

3. The issue of the costs of the proceeding be determined on the basis of the parties’ written submissions, unless either party gives notice to the other party and to the Associate of Mullins J that a hearing to argue costs is required.

4. Liberty to either party to apply on one day’s notice in writing to the other party.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Yeomans v Yeomans & Anor [2011] QSC 344
PARTIES:	ROBYN JOY YEOMANS (applicant) v ROBYN JOY YEOMANS and GREGORY EARLE SMITH (as executors of the will of Gregory Edward Stanley Smith deceased) (respondents)
FILE NO:	BS899 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
DELIVERED ON:	22 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 August 2011
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1. That further provision be made for the proper maintenance and support of Robyn Joy Yeomans (the applicant) out of the estate of Gregory Edward Stanley Smith deceased by the transfer to the applicant of the deceased’s interest in the furniture and household chattels that were used by the applicant with the deceased in their Forestdale home and in the Millard Horizon caravan, and the payment of a lump sum of $50,000, and the bequest of a vehicle under the deceased’s will to the applicant should be exonerated from this order. 2. It is directed that the applicant file and serve any written submissions on the issue of costs of the proceeding on or before 30 November 2011 and that the respondent file and serve any submissions on the issue of the costs of the proceeding on or before 6 December 2011. 3. The issue of the costs of the proceeding be determined on the basis of the parties’ written submissions, unless either party gives notice to the other party and to the Associate of Mullins J that a hearing to argue costs is required. 4. Liberty to either party to apply on one day’s notice in writing to the other party.
CATCHWORDS:	SUCCESSION – FAMILY PROVISION AND MAINENTANCE – FAILURE BY TESTATOR TO MAKE SUFFICIENT PROVISION FOR APPLICANT – WHETHER APPLICANT LEFT WITH INSUFFICIENT PROVISION – CLAIMS BY SPOUSE – where applicant was the de facto partner of the deceased for 23 years until the deceased’s death – where deceased survived by two adult children from his first marriage – where the applicant and the deceased has owned the home in which they resided as tenants in common in equal shares – where the deceased had made a binding death nomination in respect of his superannuation account which resulted in the applicant receiving $43,000 on his death – where the deceased’s adult children were not in needy circumstances at the date of the deceased’s death – where under the deceased’s will the applicant was given only a motor vehicle valued at $38,000 – where the net value of the deceased’s estate at the date of death was about $450,000 – whether applicant left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance – what provision ought to be made for the applicant Succession Act 1981, s 41 Bladwell v Davis [2004] NSWCA 170, considered Luciano v Rosenblum (1985) 2 NSWLR 65, considered Manly v Public Trustee of Qld [2008] QCA 198, considered Marshall v Carruthers [2002] NSWCA 47, considered Singer v Berghouse (1994) 181 CLR 201, followed Vigolo…