Kraljevic v Kraljevic [2017] NSWSC 225

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kraljevic v Kraljevic [2017] NSWSC 225 Hearing dates: 6 and 7 March 2017 Date of orders: 07 March 2017 Decision date: 07 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Pembroke J Decision: Claim dismissed Catchwords: SUCCESSION - knowledge and approval - onus of proof - testamentary freedom - unequal distribution to children ESTOPPEL - conversations - reconstruction - unreliable - no corroboration - principles in Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 at 319 - reliance unreasonable Legislation Cited: Succession Act 2006 (NSW) Cases Cited: Chandler v Coulson [2015] NSWSC 172 Madden-Smith v Madden [2012] NSWSC 146 Penfold v Predny [2016] NSWSC 472 Revell v Revell [2016] NSWSC 947 Thompson v Sgro [2016] NSWSC 1869 Tobin v Ezekiel (2012) 83 NSWLR 757 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Vili Kraljevic – first plaintiff Vesna Kraljevic – second plaintiff Maria Kraljevic – defendant Representation: Counsel: I R Coleman SC with J Siggins – for the plaintiffs P H Blackburn-Hart SC with B Ralston – for the defendant

Solicitors: Gramelis Attorneys – for the plaintiffs Matthews Folbigg Pty Ltd – for the defendant File Number(s): 2015/366647

Judgment

Introduction 1. Each plaintiff in this case has received more than $3.2 million from the estate of their late mother. They are not satisfied with that amount and want more. The facts of this case call to mind the words of Professor Rosalind Croucher which were adopted by Hallen J in Penfold v Predny [2016] NSWSC 472 at [6] and repeated by me in Revell v Revell [2016] NSWSC 947 at [30]. Professor Croucher described with apparent disdain, 'a cohort of independent self-sufficient 50 and 60 year olds wanting to get more of the pie from their parents, notwithstanding that the parent had a made a conscious decision that they had already had enough'. 2. Dragica, the mother of the plaintiffs and the defendant, made her will on 29 July 1992. She died on 14 January 2006. Her will appears to be rational and its scheme is comprehensible. She left one‑fifth of her estate to each of the plaintiffs and three‑fifths to the defendant, her eldest son, and her executor. There were reasons why she chose to divide her estate in that way. Her choice is consistent with the unchallenged and undisputed evidence of a Mrs Novak, a family friend, to whom Dragica said words to the effect: Before my husband died he said that Mario should have his share of the property, as Mario was the only child who stayed at home to help his dad with the mushroom farm. He suggested to me that if Mario was the only child who stays with me, then he should be left with my share as well. 1. It was common ground that the family treated the family assets consisting substantially of the mushroom farm and certain properties, as representing five shares – one for each of the mother, father, and the three children.