Court or Tribunal: Full Court of the Family Court of Australia
Catchwords: Divorce, Inheritance, Inheritance, Property, Property
Judges:  Aldridge JBryant CJRyan J

Background: The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Western Australia heard an Appeal by a husband who argued that an inheritance received 4 years after separation should not be included in the property to be divided between him and his ex-wife. The parties were married for 8 years and were divorced in 2011.They had one child who was 5 years old at the time of separation. In 2014 the husband received an inheritance from his father’s estate. The wife commenced proceedings more than 3 years after separation and was granted the Court’s leave under Section 44 (3) of the Family Law Act to pursue a property settlement claim. 
 
  [Legal Issue]The central issue on appeal was whether the trial Judge erred by including the husband’s post separation inheritance within the parties’ property pool available for division. The husband argued that his inheritance should not be included in the pool because of the degree of “connection” or more to the point, the lack of connection, between the inheritance and the parties’ matrimonial relationship. The husband was unsuccessful in taking that position and his appeal was dismissed. The Justices of the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, Chief Justice Bryant, Justice Ryan and Justice Aldridge concluded that the Court retained a discretion as to how to approach the treatment of property acquired after separation. Conversely in the case of Holland & Holland [2017] FamC   [Court Orders](1) The appeal against the orders made by Magistrate Calverley on 17 November 2016 is dismissed. (2) The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or in default of agreement as assessed. The husband was unsuccessful in excluding his post-separation inheritance from the asset pool. The trial judge assessed contributions as 65%/35% in the husband’s favour, which included a 10% adjustment to the wife for future needs. No appealable error established – Appeal dismissed      

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Western Australia
Catchwords: Family Provision, Family Provision, Moral Duty, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges:  LE MIERE J

Background: John Costigan and Muriel Josephine Costigan were married for 62 years before Mr Costigan died on 9 July 2004. There were four children of the marriage (one has since deceased): The plaintiff was the second daughter, Meredith. The defendants were the first and third daughers, Suzanne & Robynne. Muriel Costigan, the mother, was deceased on 20 May 2007 and left a will. Under her will the mother left the plaintiff $50,000 in shares. The mother left assets totalling $1,780,538.96 to Suzanne and Robynne in equal shares.  
 
  [Legal Issue]The plaintiff claims that she has been left without adequate provision for her proper maintenance, support or advancement in life and applies under s 6 of the Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) (the Act) for an order that such provision as the court thinks fit be made out of the estate for that purpose. The legal issue for the Court will consider whether adequate provision had been made for the plaintiff's proper maintenance, support or advancement in life. Whether the deceased had a moral duty to make further provision for the plaintiff after 30 years of estrangement. Turns on own facts   [Court Orders]Will varied to make further provision for plaintiff. The will of the deceased should be varied by providing that the sum of $260,000 be paid to the plaintiff from the estate after the distribution, in accordance with the will, of the furniture, paintings, jewellery and other household goods and the proceeds of the sale of the Investa Property Trust shares, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs one off payment.     

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of NSW
Catchwords: Family Provision, Family Provision, Succession, Succession
Judges:  Brereton J

Background: The deceased James Rogers (the father), who died on 10 April 2004, was twice married: first to Janice Patricia Teefey – now, McDougall - from whom he was divorced; and secondly to Margaret Anne McNamee – now Rogers - his widow and the defendant. The plaintiff James ("Jamie") Patrick McDougall (the son) was the only child of the deceased’s first marriage; there are no children of the marriage to Mrs Rogers. By his Will, dated 7 May 2001, probate of which was granted to Mrs Rogers on 27 August 2004, the deceased appointed Mrs Rogers to be his executor and trustee and gave all his real and personal estate whatsoever and wheresoever situate to her. As such, the father's Will made no provision at all for his son, leaving all his assets to his second wife. 
 
  [Legal Issue]Claim by adult son of first marriage –estate left to widow of second marriage – plaintiff estranged from deceased following his parents’ divorce and assumed name of his stepfather – whether estrangement is conduct disentitling – plaintiff able to support himself but in marginal circumstances - where plaintiff may in case of need expect support and provision from mother and stepfather – competing claim of widow - primacy of deceased’s obligation to widow - where estate insufficient to provide adequately for maintenance of widow – obligation to maintain widow prevails over any obligation to advance adult son – summons dismissed – COSTS – unsuccessful claim by adult son - where claim not unreasonably brought – where adverse costs order would falsify finding that plaint   [Court Orders]The claim by the son ("Jamie") for provisions from his father's Will is dismissed. No order as to plaintiff’s costs. Defendant’s costs to be paid out of the estate.     

Court or Tribunal: Family Court of Western Australia
Catchwords: Inheritance, Property, Property Settlement
Judges:  Thackray CJ

Background:  
 
  [Legal Issue]   [Court Orders]