Joint tenancy bypass

Published in Coffs Coast News of the Area on 23 October 2026.

Moira had two children, Angus and Fiona. She made a Will leaving lump sum gifts to relatives and friends with 65% of the remainder of her estate going to Angus and 35% to Fiona.

Angus had always been the child Moira relied upon as her health deteriorated. Fiona, who ran a catering business, maintained less contact, although she was never reluctant to make her opinions known.

Moira then purchases a property with Angus and his wife, with Moira contributing $1.5 million. All three were registered as joint tenants and Angus became Moira’s primary carer.

When Moira died years later, the property was worth $4.5 million. Her interest in the property passed directly to the surviving joint owners, Angus and his wife, leaving an estate “proper” of just $450,000.

Fiona, facing substantial mortgage commitments and inconsistent business earnings, accused Angus of securing the greater part of their mother's wealth.

Angus insisted that Moira intended the arrangement to reflect the care he provided.

Fiona commenced family provision proceedings seeking $370,000.

Angus engaged solicitors to defend the claim but later represented himself.

The Court hears that following probate, Angus received correspondence from the solicitor who had assisted with the estate. Angus understood the advice as permitting payment of the gifts, mistakenly believing they could be distributed regardless of Fiona's claim.

Despite Fiona's solicitors requesting that the estate remain undistributed, Angus proceeded with payments. He hosted a luncheon for the beneficiaries, excluding Fiona, and presented inheritance cheques totalling $155,000.

Fiona contacts Angus, but her telephone call does not persuade Angus that he had acted improperly.

After expenses, $235,000 remained.

The Court considers Fiona's financial circumstances, Angus's caregiving contributions and Moira's property arrangements.

Ultimately, Fiona receives the residue of $235,000, rather than the $370,000 sought.

Although Angus risked personal liability by distributing funds with notice of Fiona's claim, the Court declined to order repayment, finding the remaining funds sufficient for Fiona without disturbing Moira's gifts to the other beneficiaries.

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

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.