Grandchildren's Claim to estate denied
A recent Supreme Court decision has denied a claim by infant grandchildren to the estate of their grandfather, highlighting the need for family members to show more than simply a family relationship when it comes to challenging a person's testamentary freedom.
In the case of MacEwan Shaw v Shaw [2003] VSC 318, an application was made by two grandchildren pursuant to Part IV of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic) (the Act). The deceased died in August 2001, having left a will dated 17 July 1996. The deceased's widow was the sole beneficiary under the will. The plaintiffs, aged 9 and 5, are the children of the deceased's son and his de facto partner of eight years. During the de facto relationship, the son and his family lived in a home that originally belonged to the deceased. The deceased transferred the title of the property to the son by way of gift in May 1996. The son's defacto relationship ended in early 2001 and the de facto wife and the grandchildren rented a nearby property. The deceased and his son contributed to the rental costs of that property for a period of time after the relationship ended. During their de facto relationship, the deceased's son had no source of income other than a disability pension and his de facto wife had some intermittent paid work only. During his lifetime, the deceased, along with his wife, made generous gifts to their grandchildren and financially assisted their son and his family.
The plaintiffs made a claim against the estate for an amount approximating $168,000, representing the total cost of private school education. The plaintiffs contended that the deceased had assumed financial support of them during his lifetime by providing for them in ways that their parents could not because of their limited sources of income. They also submitted that their grandfather had specifically expressed a desire that they attend Wesley College and had promised to pay the fees associated with their education.
The defendant, the widow of the deceased and sole beneficiary to the estate, claimed that all gifts made to the grandchildren were made by her and the deceased together and did not exceed what was usual for caring, generous grandparents. There was no unconditional promise to fund private school education, or any exceptional circumstances in the relationships between the parties involved to impose any higher moral duty to provide for the grandchildren out of the estate.
The Court agreed with the defendant and dismissed the claim by the grandchildren. After considering the facts and other case law in the area, her Honour concluded that, while the grandparents were generous in their gifts and support of their grandchildren, special circumstances did not exist to confer on them any higher moral duty to provide. In commenting on the Act, the judge stated "...the amended legislation, while expanding the class of eligible applicants, confers only a limited jurisdiction to interfere with freedom of testation. It does not license the court to effect a redistribution of an estate because it would satisfy notions of familial generosity, or because the claimant has few resources and the defendant taking benefits under the will is relatively well off."
This case reinforces the responsibilities of parenting by highlighting the reluctance of the court to transfer those responsibilities to others, especially when to do so would interfere with an individual's testamentary freedom.
Disclaimer:
The information in this newsletter is not intended to be a complete statement of the law relating to the issues raised. Accordingly, no person should rely on this information without first obtaining specific advice from our office. | 
