Monaco v Keegan; Blight v Keegan [2006] NSWSC 825

Monaco v Keegan; Blight v Keegan [2006] NSWSC 825

Norma Blight and Sharon Joy Davidson were not natural objects of testamentary recognition because their relationships with the deceased were remote and marked by complete estrangement for many years before his death, so there were no factors warranting their applications and, in any event, zero provision was the proper level of provision. Andrew Monaco, an 11-year-old son acknowledged and supported by the deceased, was wholly dependent on his mother and faced inadequate support if left only with a one-third share payable at age 28; proper provision required a dedicated fund for his maintenance, education, advancement and benefit until age 21, with the balance then payable to him.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Family Provision Applications Under S.7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 Concerning the Estate of Pietro Tony Monaco / Judgment After Two Proceedings Were Consolidated and Heard Together
Outcome
Andrew Monaco was awarded provision from the estate; the applications by Norma Blight and Sharon Joy Davidson were not accepted because there were no factors warranting their applications.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'eligible Persons' 'factors Warranting Application' 'de Facto Relationship' 'provision for Minor Child' 'estate Administration']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'eligible Persons' 'factors Warranting Application' 'de Facto Relationship' 'provision for Minor Child' 'estate Administration']

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 Applications Under S.7 of the Family Provision Act 1982 Concerning the Estate of Pietro Tony Monaco / Judgment After Two Proceedings Were Consolidated and Heard Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were factors warranting the making of the applications by Norma Blight and Sharon Joy Davidson under s.9(1) of the Family Provision Act 1982.' "Whether the provision made for Andrew Monaco by the deceased's will was inadequate for his proper maintenance, education or advancement in life." "What provision should be made for Andrew Monaco from the deceased's estate."]

Ratio Decidendi

Norma Blight and Sharon Joy Davidson were not natural objects of testamentary recognition because their relationships with the deceased were remote and marked by complete estrangement for many years before his death, so there were no factors warranting their applications and, in any event, zero provision was the proper level of provision. Andrew Monaco, an 11-year-old son acknowledged and supported by the deceased, was wholly dependent on his mother and faced inadequate support if left only with a one-third share payable at age 28; proper provision required a dedicated fund for his maintenance, education, advancement and benefit until age 21, with the balance then payable to him.

Court Disposition

Andrew Monaco was awarded provision from the estate; the applications by Norma Blight and Sharon Joy Davidson were not accepted because there were no factors warranting their applications.

Orders

  • ["A fund of $120,000, or if smaller the whole of the estate, is to be set aside and invested for Andrew Monaco's benefit." 'Until Andrew Monaco reaches age 21, an annual allowance of $7,500 is to be paid from the fund towards his maintenance, education, advancement and benefit by quarterly instalments, met first...