• Level 5, Evandale Place, 142 Bundall Road, Bundall, QLD, Australia

Wills and Estates

Making a Will – Jointly Owned Property

There is a common belief that where real or personal property is held by a husband and wife jointly, then if one of them passes on, their share automatically is transferred to the surviving spouse.  This is not necessarily the case, as it depends upon whether the particular asset – for example a home, a car, or a piece of art – is owned as “joint tenants” or as “tenants in common”.  The interesting stuff Having mentioned these things to colleagues over the past few days, I have discovered that this information is not generally seen to be anywhere near as interesting as I think it is.  So to jazz it up, I will use an example (Queensland law). Frank and Helen own all of their property jointly.  They have their home worth $1.5M which is recorded as joint tenants, a joint bank account with $150,000 in it, furniture worth $100,000, and a 1971 Ford Falcon GTHO that they bought new and which is now worth $850,000.  They have two adult children.  Neither bothered making a will because they thought it wasn’t necessary as they own everything jointly.  Frank got overly excited watching the V8 supercars and passed away.  So what happens? Well: But let’s substitute that Falcon for some shares worth $2M and from which Frank and Helen have been living on the dividends.  Ignoring tax outcomes, Frank’s $1M share would be given $150,000 to Helen, then  $283,333 to Helen, and then $283,333 to each of their children, essentially pulling nearly $600,000 out of their investments. An even worse outcome would have occurred if Helen and Frank had owned their home as tenants in common, as Helen would have had to buy Frank’s share in the home if she wanted to keep it, losing another $750,000 from her investments. So let’s consider a variation to the scenario.  Helen now has a will made given the dramas she had with Frank’s passing.  She wants everything to be given to her children equally.  But she also wants the Falcon to stay with her children, as a monument to Frank.  If she gives the property “equally” then that will generally be taken as tenant’s in common, so the if one of her children die after they have become owner, their interest in the car will pass under their will.  If she wants it to remain with her surviving child, then she will have to make it clear in the will that it is being given to her children as joint tenants.  In that case the will should deal with the Falcon independently of all other assets, which would usually be given as tenants in common. The boring stuff When a couple buys their home, the will usually have to nominate on the transfer whether they are to hold it as joint tenants or as tenants in common.  If it is held as joint tenants, then upon the death of an owner, their share in the property automatically vests in the surviving owner (a form is required to record this).  If the property is held as tenants in common, then on the death of an owner, their share is dealt with under their will, or if there is no will, under the intestacy laws.  This could mean that the co-ownership will end up being between the surviving owner and a third party named as beneficiary in a will, or if there was no will, according to the person or persons entitled in an intestate estate. The situation is more or less the same with personal property, by section 28 of the Property Law Act 2023 (Queensland).  This section (in very basic terms) provides that where there is a transfer of property to two or more people the transferees own as tenants in common unless the terms of the transfer provide otherwise.  This means that if a couple buy a piece of art for $100,000, then unless the terms of the purchase contract provide that they are buying as joint tenants, then they hold it as tenants in common, with the effect that if one of them dies, their interest in the piece of art is dealt in accordance with their will or the rules of intestacy.  Section 28 of the Property Law Act does not apply to transfers made under a will.  In a case where a gift is made under a will to two or more people, then the question of whether the beneficiaries own as joint tenants or tenants in common is determined with reference to common law principles.  A significant case in Queensland in relation to these principles is the judgment of His Honour Justice Derrington in the will of Leaver, delivered 7 March 1996.  In this decision, His Honour commented that where there was doubt as to whether a gift was given to beneficiaries as joint tenants or tenants in common, the court will generally find against a joint tenancy and in favour of a tenancy in common because of the inconvenience and possible unfairness associated with a joint tenancy, and a court will give effect to the “slightest indications that a tenancy in common is intended”.  The language of the will will often support the existence of a tenancy in common, for example where a gift is given to beneficiaries “equally” or “in equal shares”.  Even using the words “as joint tenants” was (in the matter of re Rose Deceased [1962] QWN 4) considered not sufficient to displace the presumption of a tenancy in common, when the wording in the will was “in equal shares as joint tenant”.  So the effect of this is that for most jointly owned property (other than homes and joint bank accounts) if someone dies it will not “automatically” go to the survivor. The important stuff So are there any lessons here? First, will makers should not assume that everything that their own with their spouse will automatically be taken by their spouse if they die.  Their will should specifically deal with

Basic Estate Planning Essentials

Where clients do not have assets in companies or held in trusts, in many cases their estate planning intentions can be dealt with by a binding death nomination (if they have a superannuation interest) and a will, with other useful documents being an enduring power of attorney and an advance health directive. A rough guide to the function of these documents is: Your will: Binding death nomination (“BDN”): Enduring power of attorney: Advance Health Directive: Please contact us if you would like to discuss your estate planning needs. For current pricing on these services, please call Jessica Murray or email jessicam@qbmlaw.com.au

2 Minute Annual Legal Checkup

As we become busy with life, we often overlook events that have triggered the need to modify our legal arrangements. Below is a list of questions dealing with commonplace legal dealings for many our clients, which should take no more than a minute or two to read.  If the answer to any of the questions is “no” then you should look into it further.  The list is not exhaustive, but it touches on common matters that slip between the cracks. Personal: Your Will- Do you have one? Are the executors healthy; Are the beneficiaries correct, healthy and no potential bankruptcies? Do you still own the property that is specifically given to someone in your will? Do you know where the original of the will is? Your Enduring power of attorney- Do you have one? Is your attorney healthy? Do you still trust your attorney to do what is right for you? Superannuation- Are binding  nominations in place? If you control a Trust- Is the appointor (principal) healthy? Is there a succession plan for the appointor? Business: If you control a Company- Do you have a company power of attorney to operate if you are incapacitated? Are your ASIC records and addresses up to date? If you have a Lease- Have the rent reviews been done? Many option rights have to be exercised 6 months before the end of the term, or sometimes longer, otherwise the right is lost.  Have you diarised the last date to exercise?  If your option is to be exercised in the next year, have you instructed a lawyer to make sure that the option is exercised properly? If your business relies on some other form of legal rights (eg management rights, franchise agreement, license agreement), have you diarised when notice has to be given for renewal? QBM Lawyers can help you with your business and personal legal dealings.  Please let us know if we can help.  Contact Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au or Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlawyers.com.au.

What if you cannot find the original of a Will?

Occasionally,  a person passes away and the original of their Will cannot be located.  There could be a number of reasons why the original cannot be found – they might have kept it at home and it was thrown out by mistake, or their lawyers lost it – however at law there is a presumption that when an original Will cannot be found, it means that the Will maker destroyed it with the intention that it was revoked.  This presumption can lead to significant issues in some cases, depending upon the terms of the Will.  What it means in effect is that the person who wants to have the copy Will carried out needs to convince the court that the presumption is “rebutted” – in other words, to convince the court that the will was not destroyed for the purpose of revoking it.  The Queensland Supreme Court considered such a situation in the decision “In the will of Giuseppe Benito Sydney Calabro [2024] QSC 71”.  In that matter, Mr Calabro had died.  He was survived by his wife Roma Calabro.  The evidence showed that in October 2019, Mr Colabro and Roma Colabro met with a lawyer to give instructions for the preparation of their Wills.  In April 2020, copies of Wills were sent for their signing, and on 28 April 2020, both Mr Colabro and Roma Colabro signed their Wills before witnesses.  The evidence was that the Wills were then posted back to the lawyer who received them and scanned them and saved copies of them into their online database.  The originals were put into the firm’s securities.  After he passed away, the firm checked their securities, but could not locate the original of the Will.  There was no record of the firm having released the original Will to any person or receiving any instructions to destroy the Will.  The matters to be satisfied for the court to give probate where the original will is missing are to prove: Usually, a Will contains a provision that it revokes all previous Wills.  Furthermore, usually a copy of a signed Will  will satisfy the tests at (a), (b), (d) and (e), assuming that it is signed correctly. In this particular matter, the court accepted “as a matter of common sense and plausibility in the context of what appears to have been a relatively long marriage” that Mr Colabro would not have revoked the Will or made a new one without discussing that with Roma Colabro, and accordingly found that he did not do so.  The fact that the Will had never been released from safe custody, and that there was no evidence that Mr Colabro had made a new Will also lent in favour of a finding that the Will had been lost in the offices of the lawyers.  As a result, it is always a good idea to keep a copy of the signed Will available as your own record in the event that the original Will is lost or destroyed. For advice in respect of Wills, please contact our property lawyers Peter Muller at peterm@qbmlaw.com.au or Jessica Murray at jessicam@qbmlaw.com