1: Darveniza v Darveniza & Drakos as Executors of the Estate of Bojan Darveniza and Ors [2014] QSC 37 | March 13, 2014

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of Queensland
Catchwords: Estate Planning, Estoppel by Conduct, Family Provision, Family Provision, Family Trust, Family Trust, High Value Estates, Large Estate, Requirement of Adequate Maintenance, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges:  Martin J


Background: Steven Darveniza, the eldest son of Bojan Darveniza, took his father’s widow to the Supreme Court to get a share of the estate, claiming he had worked for his father for many years. Bojan Darveniza died in 2010, aged 78, leaving most of his estate to his second wife, Xiao Hong Darveniza, now known as Jane, who was 30 years younger than him. Multi-millionaire Bojan Darveniza was a hardworking, astute investor with a talent for turning run-down properties into rental goldmines, amassing a fortune. But to his older children, Bojan was a tyrant who ruled them with an iron rod, making them work hard in the family business after school and on weekends. Bojan had eight children – Steven and Tania with first wife Lindsay; Natasha, Jonathon and Andrea with his ex-housekeeper de fact 
 
  [Legal Issue]This case involves an examination of the familial and financial relationships of the Darveniza family. Steven Darveniza has brought two matters before the Court. In the first he seeks an order for provision (pursuant to s 41 of the Succession Act 1981) from the estate of his deceased father, Bojan Darveniza (“the provision claim”). In the second, he seeks declarations about, and transfers of interests in, a number of family companies (“the trust claim”). He also seeks damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and consequential orders (“the company claim”).    [Court Orders]Bojan’s personal estate was worth $40 million at the time of his death, but the net value was now between $26 and $28 million, the court heard. Justice Martin said Steven deserved better provision from his father’s very large estate because he had worked long and hard for Bojan, contributing to the growth of his property interests. Two reasons for his father not providing for him in his will were misconceived or based on a misunderstanding, the judge said. He also accepted Steven co     


[  ] Download Decision

2: Miller v Duncan Robert Warren as Executor of the Estate of Muriel Josephone Costigan [2009] WASC 115 | October 29, 2012

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.     


[  ] Download Decision

3: McDougall v Rogers; Estate of James Rogers [2006] NSWSC 484 | October 29, 2012

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.     


[  ] Download Decision

4: Ye v Fung; Ye v Fung [2006] NSWSC 243 | April 7, 2006

Court or Tribunal: Supreme Court of NSW
Catchwords: De Facto Relationship, De Facto Relationships, Domestic Partner Declaration, Domestic relationship, Estate Planning, Failure of testatrix to make provision, Family Provision, Intestate, Substantial Relationship, Succession, Succession, Wills
Judges:  Gzell J


Background: This case considered the issue of family provisions and whether or not a young student who was living in a domestic relationship with an elderly woman was entitled to claim against the estate. Michael Ye, the plaintiff, came to Australia from China to study. Frances Lan Fong Fung (the deceased) was separated (but not divorced) from her husband, and invited Mr Ye to move into her unit where he lived in a non-sexual relationship with her. She was 37 years his senior. Frances Lan Fong Fung died on 21 June 2001. In her Will, Frances Lan Fong Fung made no provision for Mr Ye. Mr Ye made a claim against the estate, claiming that he was in a non-sexual de facto relationship with the deceased. 
 
  [Legal Issue]It was submitted that de facto is to be contrasted with de jure and the relationship determined by reference to the facts rather than a relationship between parties recognised at law. But that approach fails to give due regard to the requirement that the individuals in question live together as a couple. It was submitted that the word “couple” was one of wide import and required only that there be two unmarried adults. But the definition specifically requires two adult persons who are not married or related by family. To construe the word “couple” in that general sense, adds nothing further to the definition and renders the Property (Relationships) Act 1984, s 4(1)(a) otiose. It was submitted that the difference in age of 37 years was not, of itself, significant. The parties    [Court Orders]The Court found that Mr Ye was not the de facto spouse of the deceased within the meaning of the Wills, Probate and Administration Act 1898, s 32G. As such, the plaintiff, Mr Ye, could not claim any relief against her estate on this basis. However, in separate but related proceedings, the plaintiff also claimed to be in a domestic relationship to the deceased, having considered her to be his "honorary auntie". These related proceedings were held subsequently to this hearing, and would be      


[  ] Download Decision