Behrens v Behrens [2020] NSWSC 1566

Behrens v Behrens [2020] NSWSC 1566

Although the Plaintiff was an eligible person, the deceased was entitled to regard him as undeserving of benefit from her estate because of the long estrangement, the violent confrontations and the Plaintiff's aggressive history. His claimed contributions to the Belfield property while Benedict owned it did not...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Claim Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw), Ch 3 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Summons dismissed; no family provision order made in favour of the Plaintiff; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendants' costs.
Legal Topics
['adult Child Family Provision Claim' 'estrangement' 'violence Towards Family Members' 'small Estate' 'contributions to Estate Property' 'testamentary Freedom' 'costs of Unrepresented Litigants']
['succession' 'family Provision' 'costs'] ['adult Child Family Provision Claim' 'estrangement' 'violence Towards Family Members' 'small Estate' 'contributions to Estate Property' 'testamentary Freedom' 'costs of Unrepresented Litigants']

Source-derived case record

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 Claim Under Succession Act 2006 (nsw), Ch 3 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff contributed to the value of the Belfield property.' "If the Plaintiff contributed to the Belfield property, what relevance that contribution had to his mother's estate as opposed to a possible claim against his grandfather's estate." "Why Patricia did not make provision for the Plaintiff in her will, including whether she knew her estate would inherit one fifth of Benedict's estate, whether estrangement caused the omission, and how the estrangement should be viewed." 'Having regard to the factors in s 60(2) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), whether Patricia made adequate provision for the Plaintiff and, if not, whether the Court should make an order under s 59.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Plaintiff was an eligible person, the deceased was entitled to regard him as undeserving of benefit from her estate because of the long estrangement, the violent confrontations and the Plaintiff's aggressive history. His claimed contributions to the Belfield property while Benedict owned it did not create an entitlement from Patricia's estate, and any work during Patricia's life interest was unquantified, long past, and insufficient in the circumstances to create a moral duty or obligation. Having regard to the s 60(2) factors, the small estate, and the circumstances of the beneficiaries, no family provision order should be made.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed; no family provision order made in favour of the Plaintiff; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendants' costs.

Orders

  • ["The Plaintiff's Summons is dismissed." "The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendants' costs of the proceedings."]