Raffoul v Raffoul [2008] NSWSC 757

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Raffoul v Raffoul [2008] NSWSC 757

HEARING DATE(S) : 22/07/08 and 23/07/08

JUDGMENT DATE : 24 July 2008

JURISDICTION : Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF : Macready AsJ at 1

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 24 July 2008

DECISION : Paragraph 73

CATCHWORDS : Family Provision. Application by widow and a daughter for whom no provision made. Orders for provision. No matter of principle.

PARTIES : Mariam Faffoul v Milad Raffoul

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 6273/06

Mr J Atkin for plaintiff COUNSEL : Mr C Stomo for defendant Mr M Evans for cross-defendant

McGrath Dicembre & Co for plaintiff SOLICITORS : Comino Prassas for defendant Kalmath Lawyers for cross-defendant

- 1 - THE SUPREME COURTOF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

THURSDAY 24 JULY 2008

6273/06 MARIAN RAFFOUL v MILAD RAFFOUL

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is the hearing of an application under the Family Provision Act in respect of the estate of the late Antonio Raffoul who died on 7 August 2006 aged 76 years. The plaintiff is the deceased's second wife, his previous wife having died in February of 1985. 2 There is also a claim by the deceased's daughter, Denise Khan which appears to have been brought irregularly in these proceedings by way of a cross-claim filed on 6 March 2008. The last will of the deceased 3 The last will of the deceased was made on 26 March 2006 under which he'd appointed his son, the defendant, as executor. He left his estate equally between his two sons, Michael and Jimmy and his youngest daughter Sandy Raffoul. He made no provision for his wife, the plaintiff, and in a note attached to the will he said: "I specifically have made no allowance for my wife and my remaining daughters because during my lifetime I have always looked after them and provided to them with all the luxuries of life that I could afford at the expense of my sons. I have been made aware of the Family Provision Act 1992 (New South Wales) and its possible consequences but it is my sincere desire that my will will be administered as I have provided. In the event of any of my other children or my wife deciding to challenge my will I respectfully request from the Honourable Judicial Officer determining the proceedings to consider and accept my wishes." 4 He also made no provision for his other three daughters. He made an earlier will on 6 January 1999 in which he provided for the plaintiff and his then six children. Estate of the Deceased 5 The estate consists of the deceased's home in Kemmis Street, Randwick. There are competing valuations of $800,000 and $900,000. The defendant's valuation suggested a valuation of $800,000. In his valuation, which is quite short, he did not deal with any comparable sales. 6 The plaintiff's valuer, who valued the home at $900,000, gave comparables. A recent sale which occurred just before the trial was the sale of number 3 Kemmis Street for a sum of $992,000. It appears that property at number 3 was renovated and the subject property with which we are concerned, is not renovated and may need upwards of some $200,000 to fully renovate it. It may be less, depending on whatever the particular purchaser wants to do. 7 There is one difference between the properties and that is that this present property has a self contained flat above the garage at the back of the home. I would have thought that plainly this would add some value, and it certainly appealed to the valuer who valued it at $900,000. He said, notwithstanding the sale price of number 3, he still stood by his valuation. 8 It seems to me that given the extra area that is available for accommodation, there is a basis for some higher figure and a proper basis for what the plaintiffs valuer has determined and I accept his evidence of a value of $900,000. 9 There is cash in the estate, or was, in the sum of $480. In addition, there are the costs involved in these proceedings. The costs of the parties are estimated as follows: