Additional thoughts on episode #28: The Family Abuser.

In episodes 25 and 26 we covered the case of Yesilhat v Calokerinos – the case of a man who claimed that for 14 years he had been having a secret relationship with pharmacist George Sclavos. The courts determined that the whole relationship was a fabrication, an elaborate lie intended to avoid having to repay the estate hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We have an update on the case and the legal proceedings which are still ongoing, as well as some additional information we neglected to include in our first episodes.

 

Links:

Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat; Yesilhat v Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos (No. 5) [2021] NSWSC 1586

Middlebrook and Tax Practitioners Board [2020] AATA 3698

 

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

11 February is International Day of Women and Girls in Science.

We wanted to do something special to give recognition to the amazing work women and girls have made in the field of science and to inspire women and girls to continue to strive and break barriers.

In this episode, Tanya and her co-workers from Catherine Henry Lawyers tell the stories of inspirational women and girls who have made a significant contribution to the field of science, including Marie Curie, Elizabeth Blackwell, Jane Goodall, Vera Rubin, Maria Merian, Alice Ball, Gerty Cori, and many more.

 

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

Link to website for International Day of Women and Girls in Science

Australian Academy of Science 'Women in STEM Decadal Plan'

Link to Catalyst.org website

Warning

This episode involves mention of physical and emotional abuse and may be disturbing to listeners. Listener discretion is advised.

In this episode, Tanya discusses a case involving a daughter who tormented and harassed her parents and siblings for decades. The daughter was able to gain control of her father and his finances, received substantial financial payments from him and was the cause of his separation from his wife.

The judge said, “penetrating the complexity of the tensions within the Grant household is difficult,” but in this episode, we’re going to give it a go!

Case citation: Grant v Grant (No2) [2020] NSWSC 1288; Grant v Grant [2020] NSWCA 328

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Special voice actors: Rob Dilley, Sky Berzins and Beau Chapman

Relationships come in all forms nowadays. We are no longer restricted to the old nuclear family dynamic. One form that is becoming increasingly common is the blended family where you have spouses who have no children together but have children from previous relationships.

These later-life de facto relationships come with different concerns. For example, both parties will usually be older and will have accrued their own savings, superannuation, assets, and property by the time their current relationship started. They may agree that they will continue to be financially independent and that throughout their relationship they won't intermingle their funds, they will each pay their own way and on their death, their estate will go to their children or their family. This is a sensible and reasonable decision to make. But after death, can the surviving de facto make a claim on the estate?

That's what happened in this case that was decided in September 2021. Listen to the episode to find out whether the application was successful.

Citation: Wertheim v Perpetual Trustee Company Limited [2021] NSWSC 1229

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Growing Stronger episode #25 & 26: The Secret Lover Part 1 and Part 2

This complex case spanned many court hearings and many years, accruing an astonishing amount in legal fees.

As the heart of it was George Sclavos, a pharmacist who owned a pharmacy in Leppington and who was 65 when he died in August 2013.

And we have Okan Yesilhat. A former police officer, now co-owner of a tyre business.  He was 30 years younger than George and after George’s death, claimed that for 14 years they had been having a secret romantic and sexual relationship.

This secret relationship was at the basis of Okan’s legal claims:

his claim for family provision from George’s extensive estate, worth $6m at his death,

his claim that extensive funds he had received from George were gifts and not loans,

his claim that the George’s informal will had been fabricated.

Did George and Okan have a secret 14-year relationship? Or was the whole thing a fantasy, an elaborate story and elaborate deception intended to fleece the estate?

In part 1 – We outline the evidence, the versions and arguments of each side and the evidence of the witnesses.

In part 2 – We discuss the findings of the Court, the orders made and what we can learn from this case.

Citation: Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2015] NSWSC 1028; Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat [2017] NSWSC 666 (9 June 2017); Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 584 (22 May 2019); Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1752 (13 December 2019); Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2021] NSWCA 110 (28 May 2021)

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Growing Stronger episode #25 & 26: The Secret Lover Part 1 and Part 2

This complex case spanned many court hearings and many years, accruing an astonishing amount in legal fees.

As the heart of it was George Sclavos, a pharmacist who owned a pharmacy in Leppington and who was 65 when he died in August 2013.

And we have Okan Yesilhat. A former police officer, now co-owner of a tyre business.  He was 30 years younger than George and after George’s death, claimed that for 14 years they had been having a secret romantic and sexual relationship.

This secret relationship was at the basis of Okan’s legal claims:

his claim for family provision from George’s extensive estate, worth $6m at his death,

his claim that extensive funds he had received from George were gifts and not loans,

his claim that the George’s informal will had been fabricated.

Did George and Okan have a secret 14-year relationship? Or was the whole thing a fantasy, an elaborate story and elaborate deception intended to fleece the estate?

In part 1 – We outline the evidence, the versions and arguments of each side and the evidence of the witnesses.

In part 2 – We discuss the findings of the Court, the orders made and what we can learn from this case.

Citation: Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2015] NSWSC 1028; Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat [2017] NSWSC 666 (9 June 2017); Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 584 (22 May 2019); Calokerinos, Executor of the Estate of the late George Sclavos v Yesilhat (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1752 (13 December 2019); Yesilhat v Calokerinos [2021] NSWCA 110 (28 May 2021)

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

In this case decision you won’t see the words financial elder abuse, but that’s what it is. Instead, you’ll see the legal terms unconscionable conduct and undue influence.

You might not know the terms, but you may recognize the conduct. We have a dying mother who, shortly before her death, gave her daughter $2.2m. The daughter was her mother’s principal carer, her mother depended on her and trusted her, and it was the daughter who arranged the transfer of money. 

These circumstances were enough to raise suspicions that maybe the daughter had influenced her mother to make the gift. Listen to the episode to hear more about the circumstances surrounding this gift and to find out whether it was upheld.

Case citation: Olsen v Mentink [2019] NSWSC 1299

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

Teresa Somes, Associate Lecturer at Macquarie Law School, joins us to discuss a granny flat gone wrong case. Ricky moved into a house with her daughter Dianne, son-in-law Mario and their 3 children. After 3 years of living together, they were no longer speaking to each other.

Ricky needed to get out of the house, but could she get back the money she contributed to buying the house?

Citation: Flourentzou v Spink [2019] NSWCA 315; Spink v Flourentzou [2019] NSWSC 256

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group 

NOTES: While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.

There are a lot of things that can go wrong with a home-made Will, from giving away assets that aren’t technically yours, leaving assets out or forgetting to provide for assets you might acquire later, failing to appoint a back-up executor, or having the will witnessed by the wrong person.

The 2 cases we look at in this episode are just cases of bad drafting.

In the first case, one paragraph in particular caused a lot of confusion and arguments partly because of lack of punctuation.

In the second case, a poorly drafted entry into a proforma will left the parties arguing over what the deceased had intended.

Citations: Jones v Robinson & Ors [2019] NSWSC 932; Marlow v Croft [2020] NSWSC 251

Facebook: link to the Growing Stronger Podcast Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/114844900573124

NOTES:

The case discussed in the episode is a NSW case, so what we’re discussing will be based on the law in NSW and is not intended to be taken to be applied Australia-wide.

While this podcast is aimed to be informative, it is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice. For any matter we discuss, we summarise, skip over parts that may be too technical and only generalise. You should still see a solicitor for complete advice that relates directly to your particular situation.