In some cases, succession and superannuation laws provide quite differently for a person who is actually a spouse, as against someone who is not. It can be difficult to determine which side of the line a relationship falls, but it can be quite important.
In the recent Victorian decision of Caruana & Ors v Caruana the deceased’s son was removed as executor of the estate and was not allowed to access estate funds for his costs. Instead, he had to pay his own legal costs and was also ordered to pay the other beneficiaries’ costs of the litigation
The Queensland Supreme Court has recently validated two informal and unconventional wills created using modern technology.
A recent Western Australian case serves as a reminder of the importance of careful estate planning where a self-managed superannuation fund is involved (Ioppolo & Hesford v Conti [2013] WASC 389).
If a deceased person’s estate is challenged in New South Wales, the court can have access to assets that do not ordinarily form part of a deceased estate to make an award to the person challenging the estate.
Where parents believe that their children may not be responsible enough to manage their inheritance or are worried about the impact of outside influences, it is common to include special provisions in the parents’ Wills in order to try and safeguard their children’s inheritance.
Generally, an eligible person will succeed in a challenge to a Will if they have been left without adequate provision and they can demonstrate some financial need. Provision will not usually be refused except in exceptional circumstances, such as where there are minimal assets in the estate or where there has been disentitling conduct.
Applicants who challenge wills in order to gain a greater share of an estate (and their solicitors) have long taken comfort from the 1994 decision of Singer v Berghouse. In that case the High Court said that, generally, costs orders will not be made against unsuccessful applicants and that everyone’s costs will be paid from the estate, particularly if a cost order would have a detrimental effect on an applicant’s financial position.
Many Australians appreciate the benefits and convenience of retirement village living. But some retirement village ownership structures require special care in Will drafting, or the estate may not pass as you expect.
It is important to ensure that everyone has a current Enduring Power of Attorney in place, particularly members of self-managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).
The recent Queensland Supreme Court case of Underwood v Underwood [2008] QSC 159 was decided in July this year.