Banking on Mum: A gift or undue influence?

Published in the Coffs Coast News Of The Area on 20 March 2026.

Evelyn died at the age of 89, leaving an estate valued at approximately $3 million. Her will divides the estate equally between her four adult children.

In the final months of her life, however, Evelyn transferred $180,000 to one of her children, Amanda. At the time, Evelyn was frail and relied heavily on Amanda, who lived nearby and had assumed responsibility for appointments, banking matters and daily tasks. Evelyn’s three other children lived further away and visited less frequently.

Shortly after Evelyn’s death, Amanda commenced proceedings seeking further provision from the estate. Although she stood to receive one-quarter of the residuary estate, she argued this was inadequate given her circumstances. Amanda relied on limited savings, insecure housing and modest employment prospects. She also described the support she had provided to her mother over many years, stating her involvement had been greater than that of her siblings.

The executor of the estate, Amanda’s older brother, Matthew, opposed the claim and filed a cross-claim seeking repayment of the $180,000.

Matthew alleged the payment was not a simple gift but arose from undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The evidence suggested the transfer occurred shortly after Amanda accompanied Evelyn to the bank, not long before Evelyn’s health deteriorated significantly.

Matthew argued that Amanda had raised her financial difficulties with their mother and that the payment occurred when Evelyn felt pressure to assist.

Amanda denied wrongdoing and maintained the transfer was voluntary and motivated by love and gratitude.

After considering the evidence, the Court upheld the executor’s cross-claim, finding the transfer occurred when Evelyn was vulnerable and dependent on Amanda and amounted to undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The Court ordered the $180,000 repaid to the estate with interest.

On the family provision claim, the Court accepted Amanda was eligible to apply and that her financial circumstances warranted consideration. However, it determined that no additional provision beyond recovery of the $180,000 was appropriate, leaving Amanda with the same share she would receive under the will.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

This fictional column is not legal advice.