Court considers quirky conditions
Published in the Coffs Coast News Of The Area on 27 February 2026.
Terry makes a will, leaving his large estate to his six children subject to some very unusual conditions.
His first child only receives his inheritance if she is baptised.
His second child only receives her inheritance if she abstains from alcohol consumption for twelve months.
His third child only receives his inheritance if he obtains employment as a solicitor.
His fourth child only receives her inheritance if he maintains his place of residence in his hometown.
His fifth child only receives his inheritance if he completes a university degree and his sixth child only receives her inheritance if she remains unmarried.
Terry’s children are not happy with the restrictions placed on their inheritance and commence action in the Supreme Court, seeking orders that the conditions be declared void.
The Court notes that there was evidence that Terry had carefully considered the terms of his will and that he had a logical basis for the imposition of the conditions as they relate to each particular child.
The Court considers whether a dead person should use their will as a “skeleton hand” to guide a child’s ideas and wishes or whether it is to the child to simply “make their choice” as to whether they think more of ‘their current habits” than their inheritance.
Ultimately, the Court rules as follows.
The first child’s conditions are ruled to be “against public policy” because they hamper religious freedom.
The second child’s conditions were upheld, and she soon attended her first AA meeting.
The third child lasted one week at a law firm before being fired. He receives his inheritance.
The fourth child faced a difficult choice, with the residence condition being declared valid.
The fifth child’s inheritance was ordered to be retained in trust until graduation day.
The sixth child receives her inheritance immediately because the condition was an “unreasonable restraint of marriage”.
This fictional column is not legal advice.
