MacAlpine v MacAlpine [2020] NSWSC 824

MacAlpine v MacAlpine [2020] NSWSC 824

The deceased's 2009 will did not fail to make proper provision for Stuart MacAlpine. Stuart was an eligible adult child, but he had substantial net assets, including an unencumbered rural property and a net worth estimated at about $4.3 million, and his asserted needs largely reflected choices to continue farming, support adult children, or retain assets rather than relevant need under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The serious allegations that the deceased misappropriated his childhood inheritance were unsupported by the ledger evidence and fell far short of proof. The alleged under-settlement of his claim against his father's estate was not established and could not justify reopening...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for a Family Provision Order Under Part 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Trial; Principal Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
['family Provision' 'adult Child Claim' 'proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement' 'estrangement' 'testamentary Intentions' 'alleged Breach of Trust and Misappropriation' 'financial Needs']
['succession' 'equity'] ['family Provision' 'adult Child Claim' 'proper Maintenance, Education and Advancement' 'estrangement' 'testamentary Intentions' 'alleged Breach of Trust and Misappropriation' 'financial Needs']

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

Application for a Family Provision Order Under Part 3 of the Succession Act 2006 (nsw) / Trial; Principal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Stuart MacAlpine was an eligible person under s 57(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).' "Whether the deceased's will made adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education and advancement of Stuart MacAlpine under s 59(1)(c) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW)." 'If adequate provision was not made, what provision ought to have been made for Stuart MacAlpine under s 59(2) of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).' "Whether alleged misappropriation or mismanagement of Stuart MacAlpine's childhood inheritance by the deceased affected the family provision claim." "Whether Stuart MacAlpine had left money on the table in the 1995 settlement of his claim against Laurence MacAlpine's estate and thereby contributed to the deceased's estate." "Whether the family rift, alleged reconciliation, and the deceased's testamentary intentions affected the propriety of leaving Stuart MacAlpine without provision." "Whether Stuart MacAlpine's financial circumstances and asserted future expenditure needs established relevant financial need."]

Ratio Decidendi

The deceased's 2009 will did not fail to make proper provision for Stuart MacAlpine. Stuart was an eligible adult child, but he had substantial net assets, including an unencumbered rural property and a net worth estimated at about $4.3 million, and his asserted needs largely reflected choices to continue farming, support adult children, or retain assets rather than relevant need under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The serious allegations that the deceased misappropriated his childhood inheritance were unsupported by the ledger evidence and fell far short of proof. The alleged under-settlement of his claim against his father's estate was not established and could not justify reopening...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Order that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed." 'Direct that the parties bring in an agreed minute of order concerning costs, or in default of agreement make any application concerning costs, within 14 days.']