AFTER a ten year relationship, Robert separates from his wife and moves into rental accommodation.

Two years later, Robert allows Mary to stay in the residence rent-free.

Six months pass and Robert tragically passes away at the age of 50.

Robert had made a Will, appointing his wife as his executor and nominating his two children, aged five and ten as the primary beneficiaries of the estate.

Robert’s estate consists of real estate and superannuation, totalling $2 million.

Mary is not named in the Will and after obtaining legal advice, makes a family provision claim on Robert’s estate.

The claim proceeds to a hearing in Supreme Court.

Robert’s executor opposes Mary’s claim, submitting to the Court that Mary does not have standing to make a claim because she was not in a de facto relationship with Robert and that she was not dependent upon him at his date of death.

The Court hears evidence, based on police records, that Robert had alleged that Mary had taken a computer and cash from him and that he “did not want to see her again or have any contact with her”.

Text messages are also examined, revealing that their relationship was “volatile” and that the nature of their relationship was “uncertain”.

Robert’s executor is relieved when the Court rules that Robert and Mary were not in a de facto relationship at the date of death.

However, the Court proceeds to find that Mary was a “member of Robert’s household” and was dependent upon Robert for accommodation for which no rent was paid.

The Court also finds that Mary was partly emotionally dependent upon Robert on the basis that he was able to “calm her down” during periods of emotional distress.

On the basis of a finding that Mary was partly dependent upon Robert for a period of just six months, the Court awards Mary a “modest” sum of $60,000 plus the payment of her legal costs.

If YOU would like a particular issue addressed, please email me at manny@tblaw.net.au or call me on (02) 66 487 487.