![\"Michaela](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/ab26b9357499fdacb1cdd0be7daf9c7eb896381f.png\")
Save<\/p>\nSave<\/p>\n
You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n
Remove items from your saved list<\/a> to add more.<\/p>\n AAA<\/p>\n A Sydney mother cut her children out of a share of a $2 million inheritance after a bitter marriage breakdown caused a deep rift in the family. They fought back in court.<\/p>\n The NSW Supreme Court decision shines a light on how judges resolve claims for a share of a parent\u2019s estate where there has been a long estrangement between the parties.<\/p>\n The family matriarch died in 2023, aged 69. She left her entire estate to a niece in a will dated 2002. By the time of her death, she had been estranged from her children for 20 years.<\/p>\n In a note scrawled more than a decade after her will, she said that \u201cspite or resentment\u201d had motivated her to deny them an inheritance. She believed they had chosen their father over her.<\/p>\n As at the court case, the estimated value of her estate, deducting legal costs, was $2.4 million.<\/p>\n The mother left the marital home permanently in 2001 when her children \u2013 a son, the eldest of the trio, and two daughters \u2013 were aged in their teens and 20s. At the time, her youngest child was in her HSC year.<\/p>\n \u2018They continue to suffer emotional pain as collateral damage in their parents\u2019 war.\u2019<\/p>\n NSW Supreme Court Justice Geoff Lindsay on the trio of children at the centre of the case.<\/p>\n She had been absent repeatedly before then, the court heard, and the children later learnt she had had an affair. One of the woman\u2019s nieces, whom she regarded as akin to a daughter, lived with her from 2000 because her own mother was unwell.<\/p>\n Supreme Court Justice Geoff Lindsay said the children were traumatised by their parents\u2019 separation.<\/p>\n \u201cWith the passing of time, and maturity, they cast no blame on either of their parents for the breakdown of the parents\u2019 marriage, though they continue to suffer emotional pain as collateral damage in their parents\u2019 war,\u201d Lindsay said.<\/p>\n Related Article He said the mother failed to recognise the \u201cpsychological damage suffered by her children, imagining them living in an idyllic environment after her departure, with golden prospects\u201d. The will was made when she was embroiled in a bitter fight with their father.<\/p>\n Any failure by the children to reconcile with their mother was \u201cmatched by an equal and opposite failure on her part\u201d, the judge said, notwithstanding the occasional card and gift from her. He said the mother effectively replaced the children with her niece in her affections.<\/p>\n The children each sought a family provision order<\/a>, which is a way for current or former dependants of a deceased to seek a larger share of an estate if inadequate provision was made for them in a will. All three were tertiary educated and in white-collar jobs but one was in poor health, the court heard.<\/p>\n While the intentions of a deceased must generally be respected, the judge was satisfied that the mother had made inadequate provision for her children.<\/p>\n Her rejection of them \u201cpersisted beyond the grave\u201d, Lindsay said, and family trauma had affected them in ways that were difficult to quantify in financial terms.<\/p>\n He made orders for the two elder siblings to receive $200,000 from the estate, while their younger sister, in greater need, received $350,000. The niece \u2013who had helped care for her aunt \u2013 received the balance of the estate, totalling about $1.6 million.<\/p>\n Estrangement \u2018not an automatic bar\u2019<\/p>\n Mary-Ann de Mestre, principal of Sydney law firm M de Mestre Lawyers and a succession law expert at Macquarie University, said the decision confirmed that \u201cestrangement is not an automatic bar to a [family provision] claim\u201d.<\/p>\n This was particularly so \u201cwhere the breakdown in the relationship stemmed from a bitter marital separation and the children were effectively \u2018collateral damage\u2019 of their parents\u2019 conflict\u201d, she said.<\/p>\n \u201cThe judgment stresses that courts must still respect \u2026 [the will-maker\u2019s] freedom, but estrangement has to be examined in context including who caused it, whether reconciliation was realistically possible, and the emotional impact on the children,\u201d de Mestre said.<\/p>\n \u2018Not a complete victory\u2019<\/p>\n HWL Ebsworth partner Guy Moloney, who specialises in complex estate litigation and estate planning matters, said that \u201cwhat\u2019s interesting about this decision is that the children succeeded despite not necessarily being in financial hardship\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cThe court focused heavily on the fact that they were collateral damage from their parents\u2019 divorce and on the long-term emotional consequences of their mother\u2019s rejection of them,\u201d Moloney said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt was also not a complete victory for the children. Justice Lindsay gave significant weight to the niece\u2019s position as a surrogate daughter and long-term carer.\u201d<\/p>\n Moloney said the decision was \u201ca reminder that estrangement is not necessarily fatal to a claim, but nor does it erase the claims of those who actually stood by the deceased in life\u201d.<\/p>\n The case confirmed \u201cthe \u2018moral tale\u2019 at the heart\u201d of NSW succession laws, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cA person is free to leave their estate to whomever they choose, even where there has been a long and bitter estrangement from their children.<\/p>\n \u201cBut if those children are eligible family provision claimants, the court can still intervene.\u201d <\/p>\n Start the day with a summary of the day\u2019s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter<\/a>.<\/p>\n Save<\/p>\n You have reached your maximum number of saved items.<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/a731e26acdce774f3d5716b03c2669eebdb9a892fe3784b26af9eba299cd9215.jpeg\")
The NSW Supreme Court heard the mother said she was motivated by \u201cspite or resentment\u201d when she cut her children out of her will.Aresna Villanueva<\/p>\n![\"The](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/263e64b9cab1c2df589a6c73b73a32fcb1a89c32432d5aa56559bcfb4e9cda91.jpeg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n