Grant v Grant (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1288
Grant v Grant
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
Grant v Grant (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1288
Grant v Grant
Judgment (4 paragraphs)
[1]
Judgment
This is my fourth judgment in these twin proceedings, estate recovery proceedings and family provision proceedings, although the latter proceedings are now concluded. My second judgment contains the principal findings and conclusions disposing of both proceedings: Grant v Grant; Grant v Grant (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1288 ("the second judgment"). This was followed by a judgment awarding indemnity costs in both proceedings to the successful plaintiff: Grant v Grant; Grant v Grant (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 1. The unsuccessful defendants at trial, appealed against these judgments but their appeals were dismissed: Grant v Grant [2021] NSWCA 181. The proceedings are now before the Court to deal with a contest concerning consequential orders in the estate recovery proceedings. This judgment should be read with my second and third judgments and with the judgment of the Court of Appeal. For convenience events, matters, persons and the proceedings are referred to in this judgment in the same way as in my earlier judgments.
Following success in the Court of Appeal, the plaintiff in the estate recovery proceedings, Seth Grant, filed a motion on 18 November 2021 (the motion) seeking an extension of his appointment as administrator of the estate so he could complete its administration. The motion came before the Court on 9 December 2021 for a short directions hearing.
Several issues emerged on 9 December. The plaintiff sought an extension of his previous grant of administration of the estate through which he had conducted the estate recovery proceedings. The Killcare property was unlet and needed to be turned to profitable account for the estate or sold. The plaintiff was seeking its sale. Nerez Grant was still in occupation of an annex to the main house on the property and wanting to remain in occupation until settlement of any sale of the Killcare property. The estate was unaware of any profits that Nerez Grant had made from her previous letting of the main house on the Killcare property. Conflict existed between the estate and Nerez Grant over the ownership of chattels in the Killcare property. The title to the Killcare property was still in the name of the Kashaya Williams. The debts of the estate were still unpaid. Kashaya Williams was pursuing litigation in the Court's Probate jurisdiction to propound an alleged 2012 will of the deceased.
It was not commercially feasible to place the Killcare property on the market immediately before Christmas 2021. On 9 December 2021, over opposition from the defendants, the Court extended the grant of special administration to Seth Grant at least for the limited purpose of allowing the Killcare property to be let over the 2021 - 2022 summer holiday period. The Court made orders, restraining the defendants from interfering with the letting of the Killcare property and removing limited items from the Killcare property, permitting Seth Grant as administrator to let the property, and restraining Nerez Grant from interfering with its being let and requiring her to provide information about its past letting and insurance.
The matter returned to Court on 3 February 2022. Conflict on the ground at the Killcare property between December 2021 and early February 2022 thwarted the Court's attempts to turn the Killcare property to profitable account during this holiday period. Seth Grant accuses the defendants of conducting themselves in a manner that was in deliberate contempt of the Court's 9 December 2021 orders. The alleged conduct included conduct that was calculated to interfere with the letting of the property and the removal of chattels from the property contrary to the Court's orders. The defendants removed some chattels from the Killcare property in a manner that appears contrary to the Court's 9 December 2021 orders. The Court presently makes no findings of contempt of its orders but has indicated that it will consider later in these proceedings whether it will refer these proceedings to the Prothonotary for prosecution of the defendants for contempt of the Court's 9 December 2021 orders and the engagement of the Court's consequential punitive powers. The defendants future compliance with the Court's orders will be a relevant factor in that decision.
It was apparent at the directions hearing held on 3 February 2022 that Nerez Grant had at least not complied with the Court's orders on 9 December 2021 to produce insurance policies for the Killcare property and to give an account of the net income she had derived from the property. The 9 December 2021 orders were made to preserve the estate's assets and to give a proper account of their use during the recent litigation. On 3 February 2022 the Court extended time for compliance with these orders. At the time of this judgment compliance with those orders has not yet been established.
This recent conduct confirms the first defendant cannot be relied upon to comply with a Court imposed orderly regime designed to benefit all parties to these proceedings. Her casual, or perhaps chosen, disregard for the Court's orders of 9 December 2021 at least in respect of insurance policies and accounting for the past net income of the Killcare property, is a sound basis for the Court to infer that it should not rely upon her assurances of peaceful cooperation in the future administration of this estate. The Court will mould future relief accordingly.
At the directions hearing on 3 February 2022 the Court directed the plaintiff to amend its 18 November 2021 motion to fully articulate all the relief which it proposed to seek on the adjourned date, 11 February 2022. The plaintiff amended the motion so that it sought all the relief dealt with in these reasons. The Court is satisfied that the original motion, the amended motion and all the evidence the plaintiff relies upon in support of the motion have been served upon both defendants.
Such service has taken place by email. The defendants have requested that the plaintiff contact them in relation to these proceedings by email rather than personal service at their home addresses. The evidence before the Court establishes that the plaintiff has sent emails related to the proceedings to the correct email addresses and that the defendants have received the emails accompanied by the necessary documents for service. And in respect of many documents, service has been admitted by one or both defendants. Documents evidencing service and of notice to both defendants of the hearing on 11 February 2022 are in evidence.
The matter was heard on 11 February 2022. Mr Ellison SC appeared for the plaintiff instructed by Teece Hodson & Ward, solicitors. Kashaya Williams appeared for herself. Nerez Grant did not appear, although as indicated the Court is satisfied that she had clear notice of the hearing on 11 February 2022.
Orders were made on 11 February 2022. The Court indicated that it would publish reasons on 14 February 2022. These are those reasons.
[2]
Consideration
The relief sought in Seth Grant's motion of 18 November 2021 presents three main issues for consideration:
1. whether a special administrator should be appointed to sell the Killcare property;
2. whether Seth Grant or the NSW Trustee should be appointed as a special administrator with functions to administer the estate other than to sell the Killcare property; and
3. what orders should be made in relation to the vacant possession of the Killcare property.
(1) Selling the Killcare property. The first sub-question is whether the Killcare property should be sold now or whether its sale should await the outcome of the probate proceedings in which Kashaya Williams propounds an alleged 2012 will of the deceased. Kashaya Williams, Nerez Grant and Miles Grant are named beneficiaries of an equal one third share of the estate of the deceased under the 2012 will, which does not specifically devise the Killcare property. The 2018 will does not specifically devise the Killcare property. Miles Grant the named executor of this will does not seek to propound the 2012 will. Whichever will is finally established to be the deceased's last will, no one will be able to claim an entitlement to the Killcare property. Rather, it will need to be sold to meet estate liabilities on all available scenarios. Therefore, preparations for sale should now take place.
Kashaya Williams does not oppose the appointment of Mr Dornan as a special administrator to sell the Killcare property. Nerez Grant's 9 February 2022 affidavit does not indicate opposition to Mr Dornan's appointment in this role. He is a solicitor of this Court with experience in executing such offices. His consent and affidavit of his fitness for appointment have been filed and read.
It is desirable that Mr Dornan be appointed to sell the Killcare property. The sale of this property is the most probable flashpoint for future conflict in the administration of this estate. The potential for such conflict would be exacerbated by the appointment of the plaintiff, Seth Grant, as a special administrator of the estate with functions that included selling the Killcare property. Therefore, appointing an independent administrator charged with the function of selling the Killcare property is the best course. Putting the sale in the hands of the NSW Trustee is one option. But the appointment of Mr Dornan is likely to be expeditious and cost effective. The task is a confined one and should be completed within 2 to 3 months of the Nerez Grant's departure from the property.
Therefore, the Court will appoint Mr Dornan to sell the Killcare property. Although the task is akin to that of a trustee for sale appointed in the Conveyancing Act 1919 s 66G, what is required here is a special grant of administration conferring similar powers upon Mr Dornan and with appropriate provisions to ensure that there is no overlap between Mr Dornan's functions and those of the administrator of the balance of the estate. The orders made below confine his functions to achieve that outcome.
The orders made below permit Seth Grant, Nerez Grant, and Kashaya Williams to bid at any auction of the Killcare property. The Court proposed such an order so no doubt existed that the parties to these proceedings could bid at the auction, to promote the best possible market for selling the Killcare property. There is no reason why other family members, who are not parties to the proceedings, cannot also bid at the auction, if they so choose, and no special provision needs to be made to permit them to do so.
(2) Seth Grant or the NSW Trustee. The next question is whether Seth Grant or the NSW Trustee should be appointed as a special administrator of the estate with functions to administer the estate other than for the purpose of selling the Killcare property. Kashaya Williams submits on behalf of herself and her mother that the NSW Trustee should be appointed to administer the estate. Mr Ellison SC submits that the court's existing appointment of Seth Grant as administrator should be extended but limited so that he has no power of distribution of the estate without further order of the Court. This is an appropriate limitation when there is still a contest between the deceased's 2012 and 2018 wills.
The Court will extend its existing orders appointing Seth Grant as administrator of the estate, extending his powers slightly but excluding from his powers as administrator the powers conferred upon the Killcare property special administrator. Kashaya Williams advanced several submissions against this outcome. But the Court does not find those submissions persuasive.
Kashaya Williams contended that Hallen J and Lindsay J had indicated at directions hearings that the NSW Trustee should be appointed as administrator rather than Seth Grant. Even if that were a correct quotation of their Honours' statements about this subject, those statements were made long before the final hearing in these proceedings in 2020, at a time when the extent of the estate's property was in contest. Those contests have now been resolved in favour of the estate. Although a probate contest remains, the extent of the estate has been clearly determined and many contentious issues about the Killcare property occupied by Nerez Grant have been eliminated. The need for a wholly independent administrator is now reduced.
Kashaya Williams and a recent affidavit filed by Nerez Grant contended that Seth Grant has taken money from his parents or from the estate. But this is a repetition of allegations that have been determined in the second judgment and which do not support any conclusion that Seth Grant has misapplied any funds belonging to his parents or the estate. Nothing the Court found in the second judgment, or otherwise, causes the Court to doubt that Seth Grant is a fit and proper person to be appointed as a special administrator.
Kashaya Williams contended that appointing Seth Grant as administrator would create future conflict in the administration of the estate. This is unlikely. The most contentious aspect of the future administration of the estate is the sale of the Killcare property and the obtaining of vacant possession against Nerez Grant. Orders to provide for that have now been made and will be carried through not by Seth Grant but by Mr Dornan, an independent administrator.
Kashaya Williams contended that Seth Grant could not be trusted to appropriately administer the estate. The Court is in a sound position to judge Seth Grant's fitness to administer rest of the estate. The Court has seen him give evidence in these proceedings, judged his credibility and assessed him to be fit and proper person to administer the estate within the scope of the orders proposed. Moreover, as Mr Ellison SC points out, the grant of administration here does not permit distribution of the estate without the further leave of the Court.
The Court has confidence in Seth Grant's objectivity and his familiarity with the administration of the estate. This gives him a significant experience advantage over the appointment of any other administrator. Moreover, his own financial interest as a beneficiary under the 2018 will and as a creditor of the estate gives him an incentive to efficiently administer the estate, a factor which often attracts an appointment over other competing candidates. And nothing in the conduct of his administration of the estate so far causes the Court to doubt the wisdom of authorising his continued administration of the estate.
Moreover, once the Killcare property is sold and the proceeds of sale paid into a trust account the remaining administration of the estate will be largely concerned with questions of distribution according to the 2012 or 2018 will. In this remaining part of the estate administration Seth Grant has the assistance of well experienced solicitors and counsel in probate law and practice and foreseeably will only have the task of attending to the distribution of liquid funds in accordance with the Court's orders. I see no need to appoint the NSW Trustee to undertake such tasks. If the 2012 will is admitted to probate this decision can perhaps be revisited.
(3) Orders for Vacant Possession. Although the second defendant, is the registered proprietor of the Killcare property, she holds it on constructive trust for the estate. Orders being made today allow its certificate of title, presently with the Court, to be put in the hands of Mr Dornan so he can transfer title either to himself pending purchase of the property, or directly to a purchaser of the property.
The Court has previously found a joint dishonest scheme in breach of Nerez Grant's fiduciary duty to the deceased, for the transfer of the Killcare property to Kashaya Williams and for its subsequent lease to Nerez for her occupation: the second judgment at [359] and [365]. Both Kashaya Williams and Nerez Grant knew this lease could not be granted as against Dr Grant and it is not valid against his estate. These findings were not disturbed by the Court of Appeal although no declaratory relief consequent upon them has been made. Neither Kashaya Williams nor Nerez Grant has any right of occupation of the Killcare property as against the estate, which is entitled to require them to vacate the property.
Kashaya Williams has submitted on behalf of her mother that her mother should remain in the Killcare property until completion of its sale. The Court has no confidence in Nerez Grant's assurances about her future behaviour. Leaving her in occupation of any part of the Killcare property during the sale process is an invitation to conflict, chaos and uncertainty. Nerez Grant is now bankrupt limiting the prospect of the recovery of wasted expenditure against her. She should be required to leave the Killcare property within a reasonable time to allow it to be marketed without the risk of interference from her.
How should the first defendant be required to vacate the Killcare property? Mr Ellison SC proposed that the Court grant a mandatory injunction requiring the her to vacate. But this is not a satisfactory solution for an occupant of property with proven recalcitrance against the Court's orders. Nerez Grant's past conduct shows that future delinquency in observing the Court's orders is a genuine risk.
The Court is not uncommonly faced with the problem of requiring predictably delinquent or recalcitrant defendants to be evicted from real estate. Granting a mandatory injunction requiring them to cease trespassing on the property merely risks compounding prior recalcitrance or delinquency, when a simpler, more efficient, lower risk solution is at hand. Entering judgment for possession against such a defendant, in favour of a plaintiff entitled to possession and then issuing a writ for possession to be executed by the sheriff produces a certain result and avoids future potential contests about contempt of the Court's mandatory injunction. In previous cases I have expressed this view, and taken this course: Taunton v Taunton [2019] NSWSC 1513. And taking this course is consistent with the overriding objective of aiming to conduct litigation justly, quickly and cheaply wherever possible: Civil Procedure Act 2005 ss 56 and 57.
The Court will therefore enter judgment for possession against both the defendants. A writ for possession should issue. Ordinarily in the Common Law Division possession list up to approximately six weeks is given for the execution of a writ of possession. The Court contemplates giving seven weeks here to allow the first defendant to ready herself to vacate the property. This would mean that she would not be required to vacate before Monday, 4 April 2022. This would appear to be sufficient time for Nerez Grant to vacate, where the likelihood that such an order would be made in February 2022 was drawn to her attention at the directions hearing on 9 December 2021.
But the Court will not finally make such an order without giving Nerez Grant a final opportunity to be heard on the question of the timing of execution of the writ for possesion. But she will need to file a motion by Monday 14 February to be heard on this issue and if she does file the motion it will be listed on Tuesday 15 February and determined that day so that Mr Dornan has certainty in planning the sale of the property. If she does not file such a motion, then the foreshadowed order for the issue of the writ and for it to be executed not before 4 April 2022 will be made in chambers on 15 February.
[3]
Conclusions and Orders
The Court will be available to monitor and deal quickly with issues that might spontaneously arise in the administration of this estate. It is a key objective that the capacity for conflict and unpredictable disorder between the Grant family members be reduced as much as possible, as the administration of this estate moves towards its conclusion. That objective will be best achieved if, where possible, a judge of the Court who is familiar with the background of the conflict between the parties to these proceedings continues to be available to deal with any issues that cannot be resolved without Court intervention. To this end the orders made below grant liberty to apply, which may be exercised by contacting the chambers of Slattery J in the first instance.
For these reasons the Court makes the following orders:
Estate Generally
1. Order, (subject to Order 4 herein) pursuant to s73(1)(a) of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) that a grant of special administration in the estate of Alan Grant ("the deceased") who died on 7 November 2019, be made to Seth Garran Niels Grant, limited until the Court makes a grant of probate or administration in relation to the estate of the deceased.
2. Order that the plaintiff Seth Garran Niels Grant be appointed the administrator of the deceased's personal estate and receiver of real estate pending further order of the Court.
3. Note that the plaintiff Seth Garran Niels Grant consents to being appointed as special administrator of the deceased's estate.
4. Order that the grant be limited to:
1. paying all ongoing outgoings, insurances and utilities associated with the assets of the deceased;
2. paying all liabilities of the deceased as at the date of his death;
3. collecting and realising assets of the estate;
4. reimbursing out of estate funds in respect of any expenses paid on behalf of the deceased or his estate, including:
1. Funeral expenses;
2. Nursing Home fees;
3. Medical and care expenses; and
4. Legal cost and fees.
1. The power to sell or convert to cash any assets of the estate required to meet estate expenses;
2. to engaging an accountant to:
1. complete any outstanding tax return of the deceased;
2. obtain a tax file number for the estate
3. prepare and lodge any ongoing tax returns for the estate;
1. engaging the services of any legal practitioner, accountant or other professional advisor in relation to the administration of the estate where he considers it necessary to do so and to pay from the estate the costs and fees incurred in having those services provided.
1. Note that nothing in the above orders authorises Seth Grant as special administrator to make a distribution of the estate of the deceased, or any part thereof, without the leave of the Court.
2. Publication of Notice of Intention to make application for the appointment of the Killcare Property Special Administrator is dispensed with.
3. The administration bond and sureties with respect to the appointment of the Killcare Property Special Administrator are dispensed with.
4. Order pursuant to r7.10 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (NSW) 2005 that Seth Garran Niels Grant be appointed to represent the estate in proceedings 2021/339080 in this Court ("the Probate proceedings").
Sale of the Killcare Property
1. Order, pursuant to s 73(1)(a) of the Probate and Administration Act 1898(NSW) that a grant of special administration in the estate of Alan Grant ("the deceased") who died on 7 November 2019, be made to Benjamin John Dornan ("the Killcare Property Special Administrator") limited for the purpose of implementing orders 10 to 27.
2. Publication of Notice of Intention to make application for the appointment of the Killcare Property Special Administrator is dispensed with.
3. The administration bond and sureties with respect to the appointment of the Killcare Property Special Administrator are dispensed with.
4. Order that the Certificate of Title for the property Lot 62 Deposited Plan 235311, known as 2 Linda Street, Killcare NSW ("the Killcare Property") currently in possession of the Court be delivered to the Killcare Property Special Administrator.
5. A declaration that the Second Defendant holds the Killcare Property on trust for the estate of the late Alan Grant.
6. Order that within 7 days of the making of these Orders, the Second Defendant transfer the Killcare Property to the Killcare Property Special Administrator in his capacity as Administrator of the estate of Alan Grant and execute such documents as are necessary to effect the transfer.
7. If the Second Defendant fails to comply with order 14, Order that a Registrar of the Court be authorised to execute such documents to effect the transfer.
8. Judgment for possession of the Killcare property in favour of the Killcare Property Special Administrator against the First and Second Defendants.
9. Note that the Court is considering the grant of a Writ for Possession of the Killcare property to the Killcare Property Special Administrator and that the writ be issued forthwith but not be executed before 4 April 2022.
10. Grant liberty to the First Defendant to make application with regard to the issue and execution of any Writ for Possession in respect of the Killcare property.
11. The liberty provided in Order 18 may only be exercised by the First Defendant by filing and serving any application and affidavit in support thereof by 5:00pm on 14 February 2022, and if so filed it may be made returnable at 10.15am on 15 February 2022, otherwise an order for the issue of the writ for possession may be made in chambers at any time thereafter.
12. The Killcare Property Special Administrator and any person reasonably nominated by him are authorised to have access to the Killcare property at any time prior to its sale.
13. Order that the Defendants pay the costs associated with transferring of title to the Killcare Property to the Killcare Property Special Administrator.
14. The Killcare Property Administrator is authorised to arrange for the payment of any outgoings or expenses in relation to the Killcare property.
15. The Killcare Property Special Administrator is authorised to arrange for all items located at the Killcare Property, with the exception of items within the annex currently occupied by Nerez Grant, to be secured, catalogued and placed in storage.
16. The Killcare Property Special Administrator shall list the Killcare property for sale as soon as reasonably practicable, through a Real Estate Agent selected by him.
17. Order that the Plaintiff and the First and Second Defendants are permitted to bid at any auction of or to make any offer to Purchase the Killcare property.
18. Upon the sale of the Killcare property the proceeds of such sale are to be applied towards:
1. Payment of all expenses and commission for Sale of the Killcare property;
2. Paying any expenses associated with preparing the Killcare property for sale;
3. Payment of all legal costs associated with the conveyance of the Killcare property;
4. Payment of any other expenses incurred by the Killcare Property Administrator associated with Killcare property;
5. Payment of the legal and other expenses of the Killcare Property Administrator.
1. The balance of the sale proceeds of the Killcare property shall be held on trust for the estate by the Killcare Property Special Administrator, pending any further direction of the court.
2. The Defendants are restrained from causing damage to or retaining any property from the Killcare property or interfering in the sale of the Killcare property
3. The Killcare Property Special Administrator will be entitled:
1. to make and be paid from the estate all usual and proper charges at the usual hourly rates as are charged by the legal practice in which he is engaged and on the usual terms as to payment of that practice:
1. for his work as administrator or trustee of the estate, or both;
2. for the professional and non-professional services rendered by him or that legal practice in the administration of the estate of the deceased; and,
1. to engage the services of any other legal practitioner, accountant, or other professional adviser in relation to the administration of the estate where she considers it necessary to do so and to pay from the estate the reasonable costs incurred in having those services provided.
1. Order that the first defendant produce to the solicitor for the plaintiff by on or before 18 February 2022 all vouchers and other documents substantiating the income received or expenses incurred by the First Defendant or any other entity in respect of the Killcare Property as claimed by the first defendant.
2. Grant liberty to apply to all parties and the Killcare Property Special Administrator.
3. The Plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the Notice of Motion filed 26 November 2021 and the making of these orders shall be paid out of the Estate on the indemnity basis.
4. These proceedings are adjourned to 15 February 2022 at 10:15am solely in respect of any application by the First Defendant pursuant to Order 19, and if no such application is made the proceedings are adjourned for further directions to Friday, 8 April 2022 at 9.30am.
5. Service of these orders shall be effected on the First Defendant and Second Defendant by sending a sealed copy of the orders to the following email addresses: nerezgrant@gmail.com and kashaya@me.com. by 5:00pm, 11 February 2022.
6. The Second Defendant is to provide to the Associate to Slattery J by 5:00pm 14 February 2022 her current residential address, and such address is not to be disclosed without an order of a Judge of the Court. **********
[4]
Amendments
16 February 2022 - Correction of Order numbering
16 February 2022 - Order numbering corrected.
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 16 February 2022