Maladministration Inc
(1) The Public Trustee shall, and any trustee, executor, or administrator may, when in difficulty or doubt, apply to a Judge for advice or direction as to matters connected with the administration of any estate, or the construction of any will, deed, or document.
AVOIDANCE OF SECTION 69
Section 69 is basic law that every Wills and Estate solicitor is familiar with. Why didn't the executor, when in doubt in July 2006, immediately apply this section viz sect 69(1), when applying for probate? Why was it avoided?
This would have quickly resolved the issue - confirming Australia's recognition of Greek law that I was the sole beneficiary and all properties formed part of the residuary estate. That was the outcome anyway on 20 Feb 2007, 5 days after the plaintiff launched fraudulent litigation on 15 Feb 2007.
Following this the executor and probate registrar would then have had no choice but to ensure probate was lodged in Greece by Sep-Oct 2006.
The inheritance process in Greece would have then have quickly exposed the executor's secret squatter lawsuit on property 671 ......are you thinking what I'm thinking?
The lawsuit was lodged 14 Sep 2006 to be heard in Rhodes Court on 26 April 2007.
The executor needed to stall probate as long as possible until 26 April 2007.
On 26 April 2007 the Rhodes Court would have handed over prime beachfront property to the 'squatter' without opposition - this is routine procedure in Greece.
When the executor discovered on 30 Jan 2007 that I had uncovered the lawsuit through an expensive title search of all estate's properties, she immediately served litigation on me to obtain an injunction to stop me investigating properties and thus the precise details of the voluminous fraudulent lawsuit, obtained with red-tape difficulty from the Rhodes court by an acquaintance when I was over there. I was verbally admonished by the Rhodes court officer for my not showing up earlier to prevent the lawsuit!! They were angry that no one had taken an interest in the land for the past 20 years. Hello... Public Trustee, 'executors', solicitor, Guardianship Board, Probate Registrar - all clueless when I had been appealing to them since 2001 to protect the land from squatters.
I even predicted in a police statement in 2005 that the Executor-in-waiting would commit squatter fraud when she became executor - sure enough this is exactly what happened. It's not that difficult to work out greedy simple minds when you know their behaviour record.
We have on the one hand squatter-prone Greece that was angry that no one took any control whilst these clueless Australian bureaucrats and judiciary could not discern a crook from a protector and all took extraordinary measures to protect the crooks and punish the protector.
My mother was right when she warned me only once in the late 90's, probably because I was oblivious to all the family feuds as I was living interstate for over 26 years and made only rare contact with the family in Adelaide, that 'they' were relentlessly greedy and ruthless. To me it's clear now that she was preparing me for her undisclosed surprise in her will - that she had left me her land in Rhodes. She also stated that I had never made any demands on her and that I was so unlike 'them'. Just thought this would help the reader get a grip on why I have no qualms about doing what I do in the name of my beloved mother. Have any of the adversaries said they loved their mother and she them. Well that's what I have from mum and that's embodied in her testament whether you like it or not. Greece certainly respects all testators and their beneficiaries. Take a lesson from them on how to respect testators and beneficiaries. One of my goals is to convert Australia's barbaric family-destroying inheritance laws to Greek-style family-unifying laws.
MISAPPLICATION OF SECTION 69
The summons issued 15 Feb 2007 did not contain any reference to sect 69.
When the solicitor realised within a few days of litigation being launched that they had lost their litigation, she hastily amended the summons to include sect 69, to make it appear that the plaintiff was fulfilling an executor duty.
Clearly application of this section is not appropriate 5 months after grant of probate is issued. Application of this section is made at the time of application of probate and before probate it is granted.
Once probate is administered the executor has to administer it.
An executor does not abandon administration for 5 months because she is not happy with probate. That is what Section 69 is for, to resolve the executor's disquiet with the structure of the Will, at the time of probate submission.
Early application of Section 69 would have led to early release of full probate, and the Executor would have been forced to either submit probate to Greece or submit a challenge to the Will using Inheritances Act and Court Rule 313. The Executor, aided by her solicitor, avoided submitting probate to Greece and avoided a challenge at all costs, because she knew with absolute certainty she would not be successful using this legal avenue. Instead the Executor chose to defraud the estate by planting a squatter on prime beachfront proeprty in Rhodes (my inheritance), and pulling the wool over the jurisdiction here with her probate-stalling litigation antics.
In any case where it appears to the Registrar doubtful whether probate or administration should be granted, or whether he should exercise any power or discretion appertaining to his office, he shall obtain the direction of a Judge, and act accordingly, and the Registrar shall be subject in all cases to the control and orders of the Court
AVOIDANCE OF SECTION 8
Why didn't the Registrar, when in doubt around July 2006, immediately apply this section viz Sect 69(1). Why did he avoid this Act when granting probate when he clearly demonstrated disapproval of the Will.
He approved the ommission of 12 properties from the deceased estate (about 90% of the value of the estate), but why did he do this in defiance of Sect 8 of the Act, by not seeking direction from a wiser Judge?
MISAPPLICATION OF SECTION 8
It was inappropriate for the Registrar to appear at the hearing of 26 Feb 2007, 5 months after issuing probate in 25 Sep 2006, to voice his disapproval.
The decision by the Judge to withhold issuing probate to Greece just for the sake of pleasing the distressed executor is incomprehensible, and has led to the possible loss of a valuable property or more in Rhodes to squatters.
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006
206—Actions for administration
(1) In an action related to a trust or deceased estate, the Court may (if it thinks fit) determine
questions arising in the action without making an order for administration.
(2) In any such action, the Court may make orders for the protection of persons who may be
interested in the trust or deceased estate (whether or not they are parties to the action).
Examples—
1 The Court might make orders for the ascertainment of possible beneficiaries.
2 The Court might order the trustees, executors or administrators to file accounts of their
administration in the Court.
(1) Where—
(a) a person has died domiciled in the State or owning real or personal property in the State; and
(b) by reason of his testamentary dispositions or the operation of the laws of intestacy or both, education or advancement in life,
the Court may in its discretion, upon application by or on behalf of a person so entitled, order that such provision as the Court thinks fit be made out of the estate of the deceased person for the maintenance, education or advancement of the person so entitled.
(2) Notice of an application under subsection (1) of this section shall be served by the applicant on the administrator of the estate of the deceased person, and on such other persons as the Court may direct.
(3) The Court may refuse to make an order in favour of any person on the ground that his character or conduct is such as, in the opinion of the Court, to disentitle him to the benefit of this Act, or for any other reason that the Court thinks sufficient.
(4) The Court may, in making any order under this Act, impose such conditions, restrictions and limitations as it thinks fit.
(5) If, in respect of an application under subsection (1) of this section, it appears to the Court that the matter would be more appropriately determined by proceedings outside the State, the Court may (without limiting the powers conferred on it by the preceding provisions of this section) refuse to make an order under this section or adjourn the hearing of the application for such period as the Court thinks fit.
(6) In making the order the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that the provision shall consist of a lump sum or periodic or other payments or a lump sum and periodic or other payments.
An inheritance challenge under this Act, which is what we all expected and hoped, was avoided by the solicitor and executor at all costs.
She avoided court rule 313, because she would have been 'out-claimed' by four grandchildren of my mother. She strategically avoided them at all costs, and avoided mentioning them as defendants in the summons brought under court rule 206.
6—Persons entitled to claim under this Act
The following persons are, in respect of the estate of a deceased person, entitled to claim the benefit of this Act:
(c) a of the deceased person;
(h) a of the deceased person;
312—Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972
(1) In this rule—
Act means the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1972.
(2) When a person (the initiating claimant) begins an action for provision out of the estate of a
deceased person under the Act, the claimant must file with the initiating process an affidavit
stating to the best of the claimant's knowledge, information and belief—
(a); and
(b) the names and current addresses of all beneficiaries of the estate.
(3) The , stating the basis of the claim,—
(a) the executor of the will, or the administrator of the estate, of the deceased person;
and
(b) any beneficiary of the estate who might be adversely affected by the claim; and
(c)
(4)
(5) Within 28 days after service of a notice under subrule (3), a potential claimant may file a
statement of claim in the Court making, and stating the basis of, a claim for provision out of
the estate.
(6) Within 28 days after the relevant date—
(a) any of the following may file a defence to the claim of the initiating claimant or any
later claim—
(i) the executor of the will, or the administrator of the estate, of the deceased
person;
(ii) any beneficiary of the estate; and
(b) a
.
(7) If the action is proceeding on the basis of affidavits rather than formal pleadings, a statement
of claim under subrule (5), or a defence under subrule (6), should be in the form of an
affidavit.
(8)n an action for provision out of the estate of a deceased
person under the Act—
(a) the initiating claimant;
(b)
(9) Each of the following is a defendant to an action for provision out of the estate of a deceased
person under the Act—
(a) the executor of the will, or the administrator of the estate, of the deceased person;
(b) any person who files a defence to a claim under this rule.
(10)n the same action and, if
a person is a party to the action both as an executor and administrator and in a personal
capacity, the person may have separate addresses for service in each capacity.
(11) After the filing of defences, the action proceeds in the usual way and in accordance with the
usual time limits subject to the following additional requirements and qualifications—
(a) within 21 days after filing a notice of address for service, the executor or
administrator must file an affidavit—
(i); and
(ii) or letters of administration;
(b) not more than 35 days and not less than 14 days before the date appointed for trial,
the executor or administrator must file a further affidavit stating any changes to the
financial position of the estate since the affidavit filed under paragraph (a);
(c) if a party disputes a statement made in an affidavit filed under paragraph (a) or (b),
the party must file a notice of dispute identifying the matter in dispute;
(d) an executor or administrator who has no personal interest in the outcome of the
plaintiff's claim may, with the Court's permission, withdraw from the hearing of a
claim.
(12)—
(a) the summons initiating the action must be accompanied by a notice in the approved
form appointing a date and time for a preliminary hearing of the matter;
(b) at the date and time so appointed, the Court (which may be constituted for this
purpose of a Master) may hear representations from the parties then present and
proceed to determine any claim or claims summarily on the basis of evidence then
available (including written or oral evidence that does not conform with the usual
rules of evidence);
(c) the Court may make any other order, or give any other direction, that may be
necessary or desirable in the circumstances;
(d)
(13) If an action should have been, but was not, dealt with under subrule (12), the Court may
order the plaintiff to bear any costs that might have been avoided if that subrule had been
complied with.
An inheritance challenge under this Act, which is what we all expected and hoped, was avoided by the solicitor and executor at all costs.
That is because she would have been compelled under this court rule to give notice to the four grandchildren of my mother who outclaimed her under the Inheritances Act, and so she strategically avoided them at all costs, and avoided mentioning them as defendants in the shenaniganistical summons brought under court rule 206, because the inappropriate court rule 206 does not require mentioning potential claimants who would outclaim her under the Inheritances Act. That is why this rule 206 was misapplied.