Eva Marie Easton left her $1m estate to the Sydney Opera House Trust. Her friend fought it in court
Peacock helped manage Easton’s financing and other decisions under a power of attorney and permanent tutelage, but the arrangement ended in 2020 after falling at the beginning of the couple’s Covid-19 pandem.
The court heard that Peacock could not visit Easton, including a lack of flu vaccine. Easton was angry and executed a new will by leaving everything to Trust, the opera house in November 2020. Peacock gave evidence that the couple continued to communicate in December.
After Easton’s death, the performer launched court procedures, seeking orders that confirmed the validity of the 2020 will and allowed the distribution of the property.
However, Peacock argued that Easton lacks the capacity of 2020 due to cognitive deterioration. He sought orders that preferred the will of 2019.
He rejected Hmelnitsky Peacock’s arguments. 2020 Found that Will was valid. It is estimated that the property is about $ 1 million, he said with a later decision.
The judge accepted the medical evidence that Easton’s capacity to weigh the claims of potential beneficiaries without cognitive deterioration ”, but refused to“ completely deprive this capacity ”.
“The will of the 2020 was as simple as possible. It was the only thing he wanted to get – the only thing he wanted to get,” Hmelnitsky said.
Peacock appealed and lost this decision at NSW’s highest appeal court.
This month in a decisionJulie Ward, President of the Court of Appeal Julie Ward, Christine Adamson and Michael Ball, Julie Ward, said that the law does not require a rational act in the regulation of the property. [they] … Reasoning or weighing allegations about property ”.
Ward said that a judge “does not have to accept expert evidence” – then medical evidence.
Hmelnitsky weighed all the evidence and found that Easton understood the importance of a testament; He knew he had; He realized that his previous will left everything to the peacock; And his desire to disinfect him “continuously expressed”. The court did not find any errors in reasoning.
HWL Ebsworth partner Guy Monolonay, an expert in the Wills and Estates case, examines the capacity of a person to yapma really intensively reset to a person’s capacity ”at the time of a person’s will.
In general, it contained “two types of evidence :: evidence of olmayan non -professional observers veya or the person who knows the will in their“ daily lives ve and the expert medical evidence of contemporary or retrospective.
People from any orbit of their lives ”people will be able to lack the behaviors observed in the will producer. [or otherwise] The ability to function up to a degree that will be necessary to make a will. ”
In this case, there was a retrospective medical evidence from a reputable expert who did not meet Easton, but who evaluated evidence after his death and did not have capacity due to cognitive deterioration.
However, Moloney said that the evidence of his behavior when he convinced people who knew Easton while he was doing the will, he said.
This included a nursing home therapist who said that Easton did not want the peacock to inherit anything at the end of 2020.
Start the day with a summary of the most important and interesting stories, analysis and insight of the day. Sign up to our Morning Edition Bulletin.
