Jennifer Loosley was ordered to pay personally increased estate legal
costs incurred as a result of her evasive behaviour in hiding terms of sister
Allison’s will from fellow sister Barbara Powell. Their sister’s 2014 will which excluded
Barbara’s children as residuary beneficiaries to the benefit of Jennifer’s two children
was set aside, allowing a further three beneficiaries to share a two million
dollar estate.
Allison
Slater died of breast cancer in May 2014 aged 64. Widowed and childless, her valuable estate
had been the subject of family discussion in the years prior to her death. Views were expressed that it would be better
to skip a generation and make any substantial bequests to nieces and nephews. A will signed in 2011, the year she was
diagnosed with cancer, left the residue of her estate to be divided equally between
five beneficiaries: Jennifer’s two boys, Barbara’s twin children and an English
nephew of Allison’s late husband. A
later will, signed in 2014 six days before she died, left Jennifer’s two sons
as the major beneficiaries. Barbara’s
two children were to get fixed sums in cash: $50,000 each. The English nephew, nothing. But $100,000 to his mother.
The Court
of Appeal was told the 2014 will named sister Jennifer and her husband as
executors. On Allison’s death they did
not disclose details of the will to Barbara.
They were evasive when questioned about the content. Only after probate was granted did Barbara
find her children had been cut out.
Protracted court proceedings followed, overturning probate. The Looselys, as executors, were ordered to
pay twenty per cent of Barbara’s legal costs and were barred from recovering
twenty per cent of their own legal costs from Allison’s estate. The court was told this would be in excess of
$22,000. Failure to be upfront about
Allison’s will led to extensive litigation that could otherwise have been
avoided, the court ruled.
The Court
of Appeal confirmed High Court findings that Allison lacked testamentary
capacity when signing her 2014 will.
There was conflicting evidence about her state of mind in the weeks
prior to signature. The court said
medical evidence indicated confusion and some delirium. She was heavily medicated at the time. While some witnesses saw someone who was
lucid, Allison’s own diary notes showed a level of confusion. Names were misspelt. Calculations of potential bequests were
described in pounds sterling (Allison had lived in England for much of her
life) and did not make sense in the context of proposed changes to her will. Nothing was said about bequests of her
chattels. The Court of Appeal ruled she
did not have a clear understanding of changes made by her 2014 will.
Loosley v. Powell – Court of Appeal (2.02.18)
18.031