"I deserve more" - Adult Children Family Provision Claims under intestacy
Category: Victoria (VIC), Private Client, Wills & Estates
Date: 03 July 2025
Author: Hunt & Hunt - Genuine People
In Victoria, when a person dies without a valid will (intestate) their estate is distributed accordance with the laws of intestacy. However, this standard distribution may not always reflect the complexities of family relationships or individual needs. Adult children who feel they have not been adequately provided for may turn to the court and bring a family provision claim, seeking a greater share of the estate.
To succeed in a family provision claim, an adult child must demonstrate that the existing distribution under the laws of intestacy fails to make adequate provision for their proper maintenance and support. The Court will only intervene where the adult child can establish a genuine need, not just a desire for more provision from the estate.
This was considered in the case of Rimbas v Paganis [2025] VSC 323.
Date: 03 July 2025
Author: Hunt & Hunt - Genuine People
Rimbas v Paganis [2025] VSC 323
Summary of facts
Dimitrios Rimbas (deceased) died intestate on 18 March 2023. He was survived by his two adult daughters, Maria Rimbas (Maria) and Katina Paganis (Katina). Under the Victorian laws of intestacy, the deceased's estate was to be divided equally between his two daughters. The deceased's estate was estimated to be $1,623,081.53 comprising mainly of the deceased's property.' Once expenses had been deducted, if distributed equally, Maria and Katina would receive approximately $800,000 each. Maria issued proceedings seeking a family provision order under s 91 of the Administration and Probate Act 1958 (Vic), arguing that the equal distribution failed to make adequate provision for her proper maintenance and support. She sought to retain the entire estate and did not want Katina to receive anything from the estate. Maria also relied heavily on the fact that she had lived in the deceased's home for many years, largely without paying rent or contributing to household expenses. Katina resisted the application and sought orders for the estate to be administered according to the intestacy provisions.Moral Duty
The Court accepted that the deceased had a moral duty to provide for both his daughters. However, the Court noted that moral duty must be evaluated in light of all relevant circumstances, including the size of the estate, competing claims, and the capacity of other beneficiaries to meet their own needs.Adequate Provision
The principal issue was whether the equal division of the estate failed to provide adequately for Maria's proper maintenance and support. The Court emphasised that these terms do not refer to what is desirable or preferred by the applicant, but rather what is necessary to ensure that they are not left in a position of need or hardship. The Court drew a distinction between financial need and a desire to continue living rent-free in the deceased's home. Maria claimed that her occupation of the home for 40 years combined with the absence of alternative housing meant that only full ownership of the property would constitute adequate provision. The Court rejected this submission. Whilst the Court accepted that Maria had resided in the property rent-free and utility-free for the majority of her life, proper maintenance and support in these circumstances does not mean ownership of the property, and therefore free accommodation for life.' Proper maintenance and support in this case means the minimum provision that is reasonably required to give Maria the means of avoiding homelessness.Court's analysis
The Court examined the financial circumstances of both Maria and Katina. ' The Court noted the following:- Maria did not produce any evidence that an equal distribution of the estate would be insufficient to avoid homelessness.
- The estate was modest in size and Maria did not present any evidence indicating that she was in a worse financial state than Katina.
- The Court observed that there was no significant disparity between the financial situations of Maria and Katina. Both were deemed to be in similar positions.
- The fact that Maria had benefited from free accommodation for decades, without any legal entitlement, did not give rise to a greater share of the estate.
- In addition, the Court found Maria to an untruthful and an unreliable witness and found parts of her evidence were implausible and illogical.
Outcome
The Court was not satisfied that the deceased, by the operation of the intestacy principles, had failed to make adequate provision for Maria's proper maintenance and support. The Court dismissed Maria's application. The estate was ordered to be distributed equally under the rules of intestacy.Key Takeaways
Rimbas v Paganis [2025] VSC 323 is a timely reminder that family provision claims, especially in cases involving modest estates and intestate distributions, must be approached with careful consideration of both legal thresholds and evidentiary demands. This decision reiterates several important principles for family provision claims involving adult children and intestate estates:- Courts will not make orders simply to improve an applicant's position or to recognise perceived moral entitlements.
- Adequacy is judged by minimum reasonable needs, not entitlement to property ownership.
- Applicants must provide solid evidence of financial insufficiency, not general assertions. Courts expect applicants to present clear evidence of financial need, hardship, and their current and future living circumstances.