Sign up to get updates from us
This week we take a look at the case involving the estate of Leila Jean Jones. This is a complex matter involving two key aspects of estate litigation and it was dealt with in two separate decisions from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. In this episode, you’ll hear the story of Mr. and Mrs. Jones who purchased a second waterfront property in addition to their family home so they could leave one to each of their children as an inheritance. However, after the passing of Mr. Jones and in the final years of the life of Mrs. Jones, their son Stephen began to feel entitled to a greater portion of the inheritance. Tune in to hear about the developments that occurred in the family in the final years of Leila Jones’s life, how her will evolved with time and how her entire estate came to be left to her son in her final two wills.
Key Points From This Episode:
● How the deceased’s final will had been altered and the entire estate left to Stephen upon her death.
● The paranoia Stephen had started suffering and why he felt entitled to more of his mother’s estate before her death.
● Insight into the series of solicitor’s meetings that happened with the deceased before her passing and why the solicitor felt the need to have Leila’s capacity verified.
● Some of the red flags that were raised at a second solicitor’s meeting after Stephen had moved in with the deceased.
● The handwritten will that the deceased submitted without the help of lawyers and why the judge had a problem accepting it.
● The details of the final will that was made by a different solicitor and how it differed from previous versions.
● Evidence that the deceased may have been suffering from dementia at the time her final wills were created.
● How the judge noted that Stephen may be suffering some sort of psychological disorder.
● What solicitors should be aware of when it comes to elderly clients and estate law.
Tweetables:
“The meeting was that unusual that the solicitor wrote a detailed file note, which she admitted that she did not usually do. In the end, the solicitor considered that there was a risk that the deceased was being unduly influenced and that she needed to have the capacity of the deceased verified by a medical practitioner before she could proceed to take any instructions for a new will.” — Leah Sewell [0:07:52]
“There was no valid reason why the deceased would have cut out not only Diane, her daughter, but also her daughter’s children. There was just no logic to it.” — Leah Sewell [0:17:31]
“It cannot be underestimated how difficult it is to establish that someone has unduly influenced someone else into making a will in a particular way. There’s only been a small handful of cases in the New South Wales Supreme Court in the last 150 years that have been successful.” — Leah Sewell [0:19:13]
“It’s also a reminder that solicitors should try and get capacity assessments, particularly if there are any doubts whatsoever as to the capacity of the person they’re seeing, even if it is just to rule out undue influence or make such a claim incredibly difficult to prove.” — Leah Sewell [0:26:51]
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
Bracher v Jones [2020] NSWSC 1024
Bracher v Jones (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 134
