During their lifetimes, the deceased and her late husband had a longstanding share farming arrangement with David “[T]heir aspiration to be able to enjoy an idyllic farming property depended upon their being able to secure the services of a farmer like David, who was prepared to work hard for very little income”. In 1988, after the death of her husband, the deceased represented to David that the farm was to pass to him upon her death, together with a sum of money. The deceased died in 2016. The deceased was survived by her 2 daughters Hilary and Jocelyn. At the time of her death, the deceased was the owner of the farm that she left by her will to Hilary and a bequest of $200,000 to David in her will.
David applied to the Court alleging that by leaving the farm to Hilary in her will rather than to him, the deceased had acted unconscionably in conflict with a promise that had been made to him by the deceased to the effect that the farm would one day be his, in return for David continuing throughout the deceased’s lifetime to conduct share farming on the farm. David claimed that he continued with the share farming agreement, and undertook additional tasks on the farm, in the expectation that the deceased would uphold the promise and leave the farm to him.
Proprietary estoppel by encouragement “comes into existence when an owner of property has encouraged another to alter his or her position in the expectation of obtaining a proprietary interest and that other, in reliance on the expectation created or encouraged by the property owner, has changed his or her position to their detriment. If these matters are established equity may compel the owner to give effect to that expectation in whole or in part”.
The Court was “satisfied that David acted on the faith of that assurance to his detriment by continuing the farming operation” on the farm “for about 23 years thereafter in the belief that he would inherit that property” under the deceased’s will. “The average income received by David was in the order of one third of the average annual total male income calculated on the basis of 2020 equivalent dollars”. The deceased ought to have known that part of David’s “motivation for continuing was the expectation that he would inherit the farm”. “In those circumstances, it was unconscionable” for the deceased “not to have left the farm to David in her will”. Accordingly, David established his case and was entitled to the farm.
A promise or representation made by a willmaker to another may be enforceable particularly when another person acts on the faith of a promise or representation to their own detriment believing they will inherit property. At Everingham Solomons we have the expertise and experience to advise you on your legal rights because Helping You is Our Business.
Click here for more information on Lesley McDonnell