Papagna & Ors v Posar [2005] NSWSC 66

Papagna & Ors v Posar [2005] NSWSC 66

Although the deceased made no provision for the plaintiffs and the first stage in Singer v Berghouse was satisfied, the small size of the estate, the deceased's intention to benefit the defendant, the parties' modest circumstances, and each plaintiff's actual needs meant that only limited provision was proper: Sonia should receive $3,000 for liabilities and Rhonda $15,000, while Linda and George should receive no provision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Proceedings Under S7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 in Respect of the Estate of Ida Posar / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part
Legal Topics
['small Estate' 'adequate Provision' 'testamentary Intention' 'adult Children Claims' 'costs From Estate']
['succession' 'family Provision'] ['small Estate' 'adequate Provision' 'testamentary Intention' 'adult Children Claims' 'costs From Estate']

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 Proceedings Under S7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 in Respect of the Estate of Ida Posar / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the deceased made adequate and proper provision for the plaintiff children in her will' 'Whether, having regard to the small estate, competing claims, relationships and financial circumstances, provision should be made for any plaintiff' 'What costs orders should be made in family provision proceedings concerning a small estate']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the deceased made no provision for the plaintiffs and the first stage in Singer v Berghouse was satisfied, the small size of the estate, the deceased's intention to benefit the defendant, the parties' modest circumstances, and each plaintiff's actual needs meant that only limited provision was proper: Sonia should receive $3,000 for liabilities and Rhonda $15,000, while Linda and George should receive no provision.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part

Orders

  • ['No provision be made for Linda Papagna.' 'No provision be made for George Papagna.' 'Provision be made for Sonia Scafidi from the estate in the sum of $3,000.' 'Provision be made for Rhonda Vertley from the estate in the sum of $15,000.' 'Linda Papagna and George Papagna should pay their proportion of the costs...