Michael Tringham follows the latest disputes in the wills & probate world
A testator’s freedom to choose who is to benefit from their estate may be qualified by court decisions under family provision claims, recent cases from Australia and Singapore show.
Sydney paparazzi Peter Carrette appointed his second and third ex-wives as his executrixes, leaving his estate to his two children by those marriages. But the fourth Mrs Carrette pointed out that her late husband’s divorce application, which he signed in April 2010, had not been filed before he died the following November. Although the couple separated in 2004, Mrs Carrette IV remained his wife, in a poorly-paid job and eligible to claim under the Succession Act. She sought A$200,000.
As executrices Mrs Carrette II and III argued that an informal property settlement (reportedly rubies and a Jaguar motor-car, together worth some A$15,000) meant that wife IV was not owed any moral duty for provision under the 2007 will. The New South Wales Supreme Court disagreed (Fillingham v Harrison & Carrette [2012] NSWSC 1145), saying that under a divorce settlement she could have
