How important are relationships: let me count the ways
This discussion is not a variation of Elizabeth Browning’s famous poem. It is about the tragedy described in the case Brown v. Pearce Estate (whose reasons for judgement were recently released).
The case is a claim for variation of a mother’s Will by her son, the Plaintiff.
Background
The deceased died in late-2012. She had married twice and had a common law relationship. In her first marriage, she had two children, one of whom was the Plaintiff. That marriage ended in divorce, and in 1973, the deceased remarried.
Her second husband had a child from a previous relationship. That child, a daughter, died tragically in a car accident in 1989.After that relationship, she declined into depression and alcoholism, and died at age 68.
Her eldest child, the Plaintiff, was born in 1965 and married in 1990. That marriage ended in 1993. In 1995, he started living with his second wife (they married in 2001). They had a daughter who never met the deceased. That marriage ended as well.
The Court heard evidence from eight witnesses, several of whom contradicted the Plaintiff’s evidence – including his sister, who testified that they observed no shortage of food in the household.
The Court analyzed the law of Wills Variation, referring to the most important case (Tataryn v. Tataryn) and subsequent cases, and discussed the obligations of a Will maker with respect to their legal and moral duties toward children.
The Court considered the abuse the deceased endured, and the Plaintiff’s apparent unwillingness to have a relationship with her over some years.
The Court held that the deceased’s reasons for not leaving the Plaintiff a more generous bequest were valid and rational. Since their estrangement was the Plaintiff’s fault, her bequest was not “unjust or inequitable,” and her moral duty toward him was negated.
The Will gave reasons for the modest bequest, and due to the nature of the relationship, the Plaintiff had a difficult case to meet, and failed.