Lambeff v. Farmers Co-operative Executors & Trustees Ltd.,
56 S.A.S.R. 323 (1991).


Facts: Lambeff (P) is the only daughter of the deceased P made a claim against the estate pursuant to the Inheritance Act of 1972. The will directed that after payment of all debts and expenses, the rest of the estate must be held in trust for the deceased's two sons. The net estate was worth $209,522.76. Barbara was the mother of the two sons and her and the deceased lived together from 1956 to 1980 with the sons being born in the interim years. Prior to 1956, the deceased married P's mother in Czechoslovakia in 1945 and P was born in 1946. They moved to Australia and eventually separated by 1956. P's mother remarried in 1966. P works and has a job that pays $33,000 per year. She has $54,000 in equity in her home and has no children. The two sons are 33 and 30. The older relies on the caravan park for a living and had worked for 15 years being underpaid by the deceased. He has a wife
and two children. His assets are $27,500. The younger has a defacto wife and two children. He also worked for his father at the caravan park. His assets are $30,350. He has also held various laboring jobs as he is not skilled and has no qualifications. P claims she was left without adequate provision for her proper advancement in life.

Issue: If a person who is entitled to claim the benefit of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act is left, through testamentary dispositions, without adequate provision for her proper advancement in life, may the court order that such provision be made out of the deceased's estate?

Holding: Yes.
The act provides that where a person domiciled in the state or owning real or personal property in the state dies without leaving adequate provision for the "proper" maintenance, education, or advancement in life for a person entitled by reason of the laws of intestacy or testamentary dispositions to claim the benefit of the act, the court may order such provision.

Anlaysis: Allowing the judge the discretion to award part of the estate is appalling. Family maintenance of younger children is important but not of functioning adults Whose money is it, the state's or the individual's?