Re Filomena Rodi, deceased [2016] NSWSC 1696

Re Filomena Rodi, deceased [2016] NSWSC 1696

The first plaintiff, already adequately provided for under the will and possessing ample personal resources, was not entitled to further family provision. The second plaintiff was both a dependent member of the household and in a close personal relationship with the deceased, and present circumstances (unemployment, sole care of a young child, and lack of provision in the will) warranted a legacy of $200,000 for his maintenance and advancement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
First plaintiff's claim dismissed; second plaintiff granted $200,000 legacy from estate, parties’ costs orders as specified.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligible Applicant' 'testamentary Provision' 'grandchild Claims' 'adult Child Claims']
['succession Law'] ['family Provision' 'eligible Applicant' 'testamentary Provision' 'grandchild Claims' 'adult Child Claims']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Family Provision Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether an adult daughter (first plaintiff) is entitled to further family provision from her mother's estate under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW)" 'Whether an adult grandson (second plaintiff) is an eligible person for family provision and if so, whether he should receive provision from the estate']

Ratio Decidendi

The first plaintiff, already adequately provided for under the will and possessing ample personal resources, was not entitled to further family provision. The second plaintiff was both a dependent member of the household and in a close personal relationship with the deceased, and present circumstances (unemployment, sole care of a young child, and lack of provision in the will) warranted a legacy of $200,000 for his maintenance and advancement.

Court Disposition

First plaintiff's claim dismissed; second plaintiff granted $200,000 legacy from estate, parties’ costs orders as specified.

Orders

  • ["First plaintiff's amended summons dismissed." 'Second plaintiff to receive a legacy of $200,000 payable out of the proceeds of sale of the property, after costs of sale, upon undertaking to vacate property to allow sale with vacant possession and no payment of rent or outgoings for his occupation.' "Second...