Sign up to get updates from us
Episode 3: Show Notes
Today’s story is one of secrecy, tall tales, and a multimillion-dollar estate! The complex case in question, Yesilhat v Calokerinos, spanned many court hearings and many years, accruing an astonishing amount in legal fees. At the heart of it was George Sclavos, a pharmacist who owned a pharmacy in Leppington and was 65 when he died in August 2013. Then there’s Okan Yesilhat, a former police officer, now co-owner of a tyre business, who claimed after George’s death that they had been having a secret romantic and sexual affair for over a decade and sought to claim family provision from the deceased’s estate. There were a total of six judgments in this matter but, in today’s episode, we address the primary judgment made by Justice Slattery and what it tells us about the factors that determine a de facto relationship and the important role that credibility plays in the outcome of the proceedings. This case is an example of the lengths people might go to claim against someone’s estate, in this instance, manufacturing a same-sex relationship that might have damaged not only Okan’s personal relationships but his public reputation too! Tune in today to learn more.
Key Points From This Episode:
• Outlining the two main sets of proceedings involved in the case.
• Why there were four judgments handed down by Justice Slattery between 2017 and 2020.
• The relationship between the deceased, George Sclavos, and Okan Yesilhat, which formed the basis of Okan’s legal claims.
• Understanding how Okan, a friend, could claim family provision from the deceased’s estate.
• Some of the factors that determine a de facto relationship, including the common household.
• Why the claim wasn’t previously dismissed by Justice White in 2015.
• The role that credibility played in the outcome of the proceedings.
• Interesting elements of the judgment, including the fact that George saw Okan “like a son.”
• Evidence regarding George’s known intimate relationships, which were all with women.
• How a de facto relationship between Okan and the deceased was disproven.
• Why a Court of Appeal often cannot make a judgment on the basis of credibility.
• The eight grounds of appeal that Okan claimed supported his contention that he was in a de facto relationship with the deceased.
• Why Okan could not be a beneficiary on intestacy based on the known will of the deceased.
• Why it’s illegal to touch someone’s bank account after they have died, even even if you had valid access while they were alive.
Tweetables:
“A de facto relationship requires more than just sleeping together. There is usually an element of living together, a common household, which most people understand to be for a period of two years, [but] it’s not always that straightforward.” — Leah Sewell [0:07:33]
“The court’s determination of credibility of the parties and witnesses go a long way to determining the outcome of the proceedings. In other words, the person whose story the judge believes more is likely to be the more successful party.” — Leah Sewell [0:10:42]
“It is actually illegal for anyone to touch someone’s bank accounts after they have died, even if you had valid access while they were alive. The moment someone dies, any power of attorney is extinguished and any right to touch those bank accounts ceases.” — Leah Sewell [0:27:09]
Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:
