Kraljevic v Kraljevic [2017] NSWSC 225

Kraljevic v Kraljevic [2017] NSWSC 225

The plaintiffs failed to establish any well-grounded suspicion that Dragica did not know and approve the contents of her will. Dragica had rational reasons for preferring the defendant, testamentary capacity was not challenged, and the unequal distribution did not itself support the claim. The estoppel claim failed because the Court did not accept the plaintiffs' evidence of the alleged January 1993 representations and, in any event, the objective documents and events made any asserted belief in a one-third entitlement unreasonable. The alleged $20,000 agreement also failed because the Court preferred the defendant's evidence and did not accept that the conversation or agreement occurred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Equity Proceeding Concerning Succession, Knowledge and Approval of a Will, Estoppel and an Alleged Agreement / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
['knowledge and Approval' 'onus of Proof' 'testamentary Freedom' 'unequal Distribution to Children' 'reconstruction of Conversations' 'reasonable Reliance' 'credibility of Witnesses']
['succession' 'equity' 'estoppel' 'wills and Probate'] ['knowledge and Approval' 'onus of Proof' 'testamentary Freedom' 'unequal Distribution to Children' 'reconstruction of Conversations' 'reasonable Reliance' 'credibility of Witnesses']

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

Equity Proceeding Concerning Succession, Knowledge and Approval of a Will, Estoppel and an Alleged Agreement / Final Hearing; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Dragica knew and approved the contents of her will made on 29 July 1992.' 'Whether circumstances displaced the presumption of knowledge and approval of a duly executed will by a testator with testamentary capacity.' 'Whether the plaintiffs established an estoppel arising from alleged January 1993 conversations concerning the family estate and future equal division.' "Whether the plaintiffs reasonably assumed that they would each receive a one-third interest in their mother's estate." 'Whether the defendant agreed to pay Vesna Kraljevic $20,000 from his share of the proceeds of sale of 44 Cudgegong Road.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to establish any well-grounded suspicion that Dragica did not know and approve the contents of her will. Dragica had rational reasons for preferring the defendant, testamentary capacity was not challenged, and the unequal distribution did not itself support the claim. The estoppel claim failed because the Court did not accept the plaintiffs' evidence of the alleged January 1993 representations and, in any event, the objective documents and events made any asserted belief in a one-third entitlement unreasonable. The alleged $20,000 agreement also failed because the Court preferred the defendant's evidence and did not accept that the conversation or agreement occurred.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • ['The amended statement of claim is dismissed.' "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs."]