Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123; Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2003] NSWSC 89

The Bar-Mordecai saga involves a doctor (Michael Bar-Mordecai, 36 years old) who commenced a relationship with his patient (Eveline Hillston, 72 years old) and not only continued to act as her doctor, but also got her to work for free in his medical clinic.

Eveline died in 1994 and soon after started legal proceedings that would run for over a decade. Bar-Mordecai claimed that Eveline destroyed her Will and, as her de facto, her was entitled to her entire estate. The estate denied that a de facto relationship existed and wanted Bar-Mordecai to return the significant gifts he had receiving, including his share in the home and the site of his medical practice.

The relationship between Bar-Mordecai and Eveline spawned about 46 court judgements and I cover only the core issues in this three part series.

Part 1 we cover the background and the nature of the relationship between Bar-Mordecai and Eveline.

Part 2 we cover the probate proceedings, the allegations of undue influence and the family provision claim.

Part 3 we cover the application to force the sale of the home and the proceedings before the medical tribunal.

Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123; Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2003] NSWSC 89

The Bar-Mordecai saga involves a doctor (Michael Bar-Mordecai, 36 years old) who commenced a relationship with his patient (Eveline Hillston, 72 years old) and not only continued to act as her doctor, but also got her to work for free in his medical clinic.

Eveline died in 1994 and soon after started legal proceedings that would run for over a decade. Bar-Mordecai claimed that Eveline destroyed her Will and, as her de facto, her was entitled to her entire estate. The estate denied that a de facto relationship existed and wanted Bar-Mordecai to return the significant gifts he had receiving, including his share in the home and the site of his medical practice.

The relationship between Bar-Mordecai and Eveline spawned about 46 court judgements and I cover only the core issues in this three part series.

Part 1 we cover the background and the nature of the relationship between Bar-Mordecai and Eveline.

Part 2 we cover the probate proceedings, the allegations of undue influence and the family provision claim.

Part 3 we cover the application to force the sale of the home and the proceedings before the medical tribunal.

Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123; Hillston v Bar-Mordecai [2003] NSWSC 89

The Bar-Mordecai saga involves a doctor (Michael Bar-Mordecai, 36 years old) who commenced a relationship with his patient (Eveline Hillston, 72 years old) and not only continued to act as her doctor, but also got her to work for free in his medical clinic.

Eveline died in 1994 and soon after started legal proceedings that would run for over a decade. Bar-Mordecai claimed that Eveline destroyed her Will and, as her de facto, her was entitled to her entire estate. The estate denied that a de facto relationship existed and wanted Bar-Mordecai to return the significant gifts he had receiving, including his share in the home and the site of his medical practice.

The relationship between Bar-Mordecai and Eveline spawned about 46 court judgements and I cover only the core issues in this three part series.

Part 1 we cover the background and the nature of the relationship between Bar-Mordecai and Eveline.

Part 2 we cover the probate proceedings, the allegations of undue influence and the family provision claim.

Part 3 we cover the application to force the sale of the home and the proceedings before the medical tribunal.

Case: Meena v Jacobs; Re The Estate of Catherine Nolan [2004] NSWSC 1191

Catherine Nolan may not have intended to leave 40% of her estate to charities, but the question for the Court was whether they could rectify her Will to change that outcome?

This case deals with the power of the NSW Supreme Court to rectify a will where there has been a clerical error made and how that power will not be available to correct all mistakes in Wills.

An update on the powers of rectification can be found in this article by Liam Tobin of Baker Love Lawyers.

[Birch v Birch [2020] QCA 31 (28 February 2020)

Birch v Birch [2018] QSC 289 (16 November 2018)]

Doug Birch worked on his parents farm 'Fairyland' for his whole life. In exchange for his commitment, his parents gifted him 1/3rd of the property.

After his father's death, his mother Betty gifted him another 1/3rd of the property. She also wrote a letter to her other children explaining to them that it was her wish that the farm not be sold off and that Doug be able to continue the family business.

Betty also did a new Will that gifted the final 1/3rd of the property to Doug on her death, on the proviso that he pay his siblings the value of it.

Two years after the transfer, just before she was to move into a nursing home, Betty started legal proceedings against Doug to get her 1/3rd of the property back. She was egged on by her other sons Colin, Stanley and Geoffrey.

What spurred Betty's change of mind? And did she get her share back?

Marlow v Croft [2020] NSWSC 251

Fourteen years before his death, in 2002, Thomas Marlow had done his Wills using a proforma will form. This is a form that sets out the clauses and you fill in the gaps.

The form read "I give the residue of my estate to" and Thomas had written:

"My wife Violet Marlow and to stay at the Blacktown property till she dies and the house or belongings not to be sold until the death of my wife Violet Marlow also all money in bank goes to my wife"

This clause raised a big question: Did Thomas give his wife the Blacktown property, or only the right to live in it?

His children argued that Violet only had a licence to live in the property, which ended when she went to stay with her niece.

It was up to the Court to determine what the clause in the Will meant.

Jones v Robinsons & Ors [2019] NSWSC 932

Daisy Roach handwrote her last Will in September 2013 and her lack of punctuation led to a costly legal dispute over the correct interpretation of her wishes.

One interpretation would leave about $2.2 million to her favourite nieces, Lynette and Joy.

A different interpretation would see the $2.2 million divided between all of Daisy's 18 nieces and nephews.

That's a lot of money on the line for lack of a few commas and full-stops.

The conflict-creating clause?

If the villa hasn’t already been sold it goes to Lyn if it has been sold whatever money is left after the others get their share what I have in investments ¾ three quarts of money goes to Lynette Jones the rest goes to my niece Joy Ashley.

Day v Peake [2023] QDC 178

The administration of the estate of the late Desmond Guy screeched to a grinding halt when 2 of his 7 children refused to move out of their deceased father's property.

They both made an application for further provision from his estate - Scott Day later dropped his claim.

Lloyd Day made his application late and the Court first needed to determine whether they should allow his late application. This case is a good example of what the Court will consider when an application applies out of time.

There was Lloyd's credibility as a witness (described by the Court as "unreliable"), his conduct during the legal proceedings ("unconscionable"), and the chances of his claim succeeding ("futile").

Calvin v McTier [2017] FamCAFC 125

Mr Calvin and Ms McTier married in February 2002, separated in April 2010 and divorced in August 2011.

After they separated, they did not have a formal division of assets or property settlement.

In January 2014, Mr Calvin received an inheritance from his late father's estate.

In March 2015, Ms McTier commenced proceedings in the family law courts seeking a division of the assets, including the inheritance.

Was she successful?

Issa v Owens [2023] QSC 4

Hind Issa owned 2 properties:

In 2018 she got the shock of her life when she found out that her properties had been mortgaged, the loan payments had defaulted, and the bank was taking her homes.

More distressing, it was her son James who she suspected forged her signatures on the loan and mortgage documents.

Was there a way for her to get her properties back?