Kitteridge v Kitteridge [2022] NSWSC 193

Kitteridge v Kitteridge [2022] NSWSC 193

The court found that adequate provision for Lee Kitteridge’s proper maintenance and advancement in life had not been made by the deceased’s will; the estrangement was provoked principally by the deceased in the context of the family’s marital breakdown, Lee’s duty to his father, and the emotional choices forced by the deceased. Community standards would require a parent in such circumstances to recognize the harm caused by compelling a child to choose sides and to not completely exclude the child from testamentary provision. Lee had demonstrated a real financial need, and the size of the estate allowed for reasonable provision to both sons. Further provision of $460,000 was ordered for...

Parties
Plaintiff: Lee Kitteridge; Defendant; Executor: Steven Kitteridge
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Family Provision; Succession / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Order for further provision in favour of the plaintiff: lump sum of $460,000 to be paid to Lee Kitteridge out of the estate; costs orders for both parties to be paid out of the estate, with final orders to be settled after input from the parties.
Legal Topics
Family Provision, Estrangement in Succession Claims, Testamentary Intentions, Adult Child Claim Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw)
Succession Law Equity Family Provision Estrangement in Succession Claims Testamentary Intentions Adult Child Claim Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw)

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Kitteridge

Plaintiff

Steven Kitteridge

Defendant; Executor

Procedural Posture

Family Provision; Succession / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education or advancement in life of Lee Kitteridge has been made by the deceased's will
  2. 2 Effect of estrangement between plaintiff and deceased on family provision claim
  3. 3 Weight to be given to testator’s testamentary intentions, particularly when estrangement is involved

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that adequate provision for Lee Kitteridge’s proper maintenance and advancement in life had not been made by the deceased’s will; the estrangement was provoked principally by the deceased in the context of the family’s marital breakdown, Lee’s duty to his father, and the emotional choices forced by the deceased. Community standards would require a parent in such circumstances to recognize the harm caused by compelling a child to choose sides and to not completely exclude the child from testamentary provision. Lee had demonstrated a real financial need, and the size of the estate allowed for reasonable provision to both sons. Further provision of $460,000 was ordered for...

Court Disposition

Order for further provision in favour of the plaintiff: lump sum of $460,000 to be paid to Lee Kitteridge out of the estate; costs orders for both parties to be paid out of the estate, with final orders to be settled after input from the parties.

Orders

  • Order, pursuant to s 59 Succession Act 2006 (NSW), that Lee Kitteridge receive a lump sum of $460,000 from the estate.
  • Order that the provision for the plaintiff be provided out of the residuary estate.