Personal chattels go to the partner
A payment of $155,000 to the partner
The rest of the estate is split into three:
one third goes to the partner;
andtwo thirds goes to the children
The partner will receive personal chattels and $270,000.
A partner
but no children
or no parents
The partner will receive the personal chattels and the whole estate of $500,000
A partner and children
The partner will receive personal chattels and $270,000.
The children will receive $230,000. If there is more than one child this is shared equally between them.
A partner but no children and one or both parents
The partner will receive the personal chattels and $385,000.
The parent will receive $115,000. If there are two parents, this is shared equally, so $57,500 each.
Children and no partner
All of the estate goes to the children
Children receive everything – $500,000 shared equally
No partner, no children, but one or both parents
All of the estate goes to the parents
Parents receive everything $500,000 – if two surviving parents they will receive $250,000 each
No partner, no children, no parents, but one or more siblings (full or half)
All of the estate goes to the siblings to share equally.
The siblings will receive $500,000 shared equally
No partner, no children, no parents, but grandparents or uncles or aunts
The estate will be split into two
as to half (mother’s side):
as to the other half (father’s side):
Example 1. If there are two grandparents on the mother’s side and one aunt on the father’s side then:
The grandparents share in $250,000 ($125,000 each) and the aunt gets $250,000
Example 2. if there are no grandparents or aunts or uncles on the mother’s side, but two grandparents on the father’s side then:
The grandparents share $500,000 ($250,000 each)
Where the person leaves behind none of the above people
All of the estate goes to the Crown
This is the only situation where the estate goes to the Crown.
Charlie Smith died in 2006. His estate was worth approximately $1.625 million ($2.9 million now).
Charlie had four estranged adult children – Louise, Daniel, Brianna and Jill. Charlie had gone through a bitter separation with their mother when the children were all under 15 years old. He had had little to do with the children; had not given them any financial or emotional assistance and had written them off by placing them in the “camp of his ex-wife”.
Caroline Jones and her husband, Carl, were close family friends with Charlie. Charlie had effectively adopted Caroline, Carl and their family as ‘his family’.
Charlie’s will gave $25,000 ($45,000 now) to each of his children and $2,000 to his caregiver. The rest of his estate was left to Caroline and Carl.
Louise, Daniel, Brianna and Jill made a claim under the Family Protection Act against Charlie’s estate claiming that Charlie had breached his moral duty by failing to make adequate provisions for them in his will.
Louise told the court that her parent’s separation was very difficult. She received no emotional support from her dad and suffered emotional problems due to the estrangement. Louise was married with two children. She made $67,000 per year and her husband made $32,000 per annum. They had a house worth $550,000 subject to a $19,000 mortgage. They were also supporting their daughter through university.
Daniel was divorced with two children. He said that Charlie’s rejection of him caused him emotional problems and low self-esteem. Daniel earned between $25,000 to $35,000 per year and had debts of $10,000. He had a house worth $560,000 subject to a mortgage of $128,000. One of Daniel’s children was still living at home.
Brianna had had a difficult life, she was in an emotionally abusive relationship, had had several miscarriages and one baby die. She suffered from depression and felt neglected by Charlie. Brianna was a single mum, earning $23,400 a year. She had ongoing medical issues, owed a debt of $20,000 to her mum and had $2,700 on her credit card. Brianna owned a house worth around $330,000 with a mortgage of $66,900.
Jill told the court that she felt abandoned by her dad and had never felt like he had wanted anything to do with her. Jill was having ongoing psychotherapy treatment. She was single earning $66,561 a year, had cash savings of $16,500 and a car worth $1,000. Jill owed her Mum $5,000.
The Court said that Charlie, being the adult at the time of his separation (which is when the estrangement started), bore prime responsibility for the estrangement between him and his children. The court also said that a parent cannot blame lack of communication on young children, or infer that they should have taken the initiative to contact the parent. All of Charlie’s children suffered emotionally due to his lack of interest in them.Charlie had significantly breached the moral duty he owed to his children. Charlie did not owe that same duty to Caroline or Carl. The Court awarded $145,000 ($262,000 now) to each of the children being 75 per cent of the net value of the estate.
Charlie Smith died in 2006. His estate was worth approximately $1.625 million ($2.9 million now).
Charlie had four estranged adult children – Louise, Daniel, Brianna and Jill. Charlie had gone through a bitter separation with their mother when the children were all under 15 years old. He had had little to do with the children; had not given them any financial or emotional assistance and had written them off by placing them in the “camp of his ex-wife”.
Caroline Jones and her husband, Carl, were close family friends with Charlie. Charlie had effectively adopted Caroline, Carl and their family as ‘his family’.
Charlie’s will gave $25,000 ($45,000 now) to each of his children and $2,000 to his caregiver. The rest of his estate was left to Caroline and Carl.
Louise, Daniel, Brianna and Jill made a claim under the Family Protection Act against Charlie’s estate claiming that Charlie had breached his moral duty by failing to make adequate provisions for them in his will.
Louise told the court that her parent’s separation was very difficult. She received no emotional support from her dad and suffered emotional problems due to the estrangement. Louise was married with two children. She made $67,000 per year and her husband made $32,000 per annum. They had a house worth $550,000 subject to a $19,000 mortgage. They were also supporting their daughter through university.
Daniel was divorced with two children. He said that Charlie’s rejection of him caused him emotional problems and low self-esteem. Daniel earned between $25,000 to $35,000 per year and had debts of $10,000. He had a house worth $560,000 subject to a mortgage of $128,000. One of Daniel’s children was still living at home.
Brianna had had a difficult life, she was in an emotionally abusive relationship, had had several miscarriages and one baby die. She suffered from depression and felt neglected by Charlie. Brianna was a single mum, earning $23,400 a year. She had ongoing medical issues, owed a debt of $20,000 to her mum and had $2,700 on her credit card. Brianna owned a house worth around $330,000 with a mortgage of $66,900.
Jill told the court that she felt abandoned by her dad and had never felt like he had wanted anything to do with her. Jill was having ongoing psychotherapy treatment. She was single earning $66,561 a year, had cash savings of $16,500 and a car worth $1,000. Jill owed her Mum $5,000.
The Court said that Charlie, being the adult at the time of his separation (which is when the estrangement started), bore prime responsibility for the estrangement between him and his children. The court also said that a parent cannot blame lack of communication on young children, or infer that they should have taken the initiative to contact the parent. All of Charlie’s children suffered emotionally due to his lack of interest in them.Charlie had significantly breached the moral duty he owed to his children. Charlie did not owe that same duty to Caroline or Carl. The Court awarded $145,000 ($262,000 now) to each of the children being 75 per cent of the net value of the estate.
