The deceased died in 2018 and was survived by his second wife Nejme and 9 adult children from his first marriage. The deceased died leaving a will made in 2015 whereby the deceased gave Nejme a right of residence for 2 years in the home shared by the deceased and Nejme for the duration of their 17-year marriage (the home), $200,000 to one child, and the rest of the proceeds of sale of the home equally to Nejme and his children. Nejme made an application to the Court for further provision from the deceased’s estate.
Nejme was an eligible person as the deceased’s spouse at the time of his death to make an application to the Court for further provision from the deceased’s estate. The issue the Court had to determine was whether: “…adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education or advancement in life of the person in whose favour the order is to be made (i.e. Nejme) has not been made by the will of the deceased person …”. In the event the will failed to make adequate provision for Nejme, then the Court was empowered by legislation to make an order for provision “as the Court thinks ought to be made for the maintenance, education or advancement in life of the eligible person, having regard to the facts known to the Court at the time the order is made”.
The Court noted that, whilst “there was no special rule for widows”, “there is a basic minimum which the community regards as necessary for testators to provide for their spouses where their marriage has been of medium to long duration. Those basic necessities include a secure roof over the remaining spouse’s head and at least a small capital sum”. In this case, the Court held “I think it is plain that now, in 2021, adequate provision for the proper maintenance, education or advancement in life has not been made by the will”. “In short, her marriage of 17 years places Nejme in the position of any other widow. She is entitled to a reasonable measure of security of living quarters and means for the rest of her days”.
When considering what additional provision ought to be made from the deceased’s estate in favour of Nejme, the Court considered a range of orders. Taking into consideration the tensions and opposing interests that existed between Nejme on the one hand and the deceased’s children on the other, the Court favoured an outcome that would permit Nejme and the deceased’s children to go their separate ways. The Court ordered further provision out of the deceased’s estate in favour of Nejme of $500,000.
At Everingham Solomons we have the expertise to assist you with all matters relating to family provision claims, because Helping You is Our Business.
Click here for more information on Lesley McDonnell