The Family Court has declined a daughter’s claim that she is entitled to a larger share of her father’s estate as she argued she contributed more to her father’s care. The Court disagreed that her father had breached his moral duty to her.

The daughter brought a claim to the Family Court challenging her father’s Will. The Will stated that his almost two-million-dollar estate was to be split equally between his nine children.

The daughter claimed that the equal provisions under the Will were unfair. She argued that her father had failed to fulfil his “moral duty” to her by giving her only an equal share in the estate as she had contributed more to his life than her siblings.

A parent has a moral duty to their child to ensure that they “…make adequate provision for [their child’s] proper maintenance and support”. This may allow a Court to make alterations to a Will where a parent has failed to adequately provide for one or all of their children.

However, the Family Court Judge stated that this moral duty does not mean that all children must be treated equally in a Will. Rather, the duty depends on the maintenance and support required for the particular child.

The daughter argued that she had invested significantly more in her parents’ lives, such as taking them to doctors’ appointments and helping them through legal proceedings.

However, the Judge considered the broader circumstances of the family. For example, the daughter had exhibited control over her parents and their relationship with her other siblings. In some situations, the daughter had limited her parents’ contact with her siblings.

The Judge considered that it would be unjust for the daughter to benefit from a situation that she had created herself. Further, the siblings had made their own financial contributions to the family, some from a young age.

The Will and a family trust were expected to provide the daughter with an estimated $720,000. The Judge decided that this was sufficient to meet the daughter’s proper maintenance and support.

The Judge also considered that the father had made his Will with full knowledge of the daughter’s commitments and contributions to the family. This meant that if the father had intended for the daughter to receive more under the Will for her contributions, he would have drafted his Will accordingly. Therefore, enforcing the Will also upheld the father’s wishes.

The Judge found that the father had fulfilled his moral duty to his daughter under his Will and dismissed the claim.

This case is an important reminder of what a parent’s “moral duty” actually is, and reaffirms that it cannot be used merely to receive more under a Will. If you have an estate issue it pays to seek advice from a professional with experience in the area.

Leading law firms committed to helping clients cost-effectively will have a range of fixed-price Initial Consultations to suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.  At Rainey Collins we have an experienced team who can answer your questions and put you on the right track.