Australian judge awards bulk of $3.8m estate to daughter
An Australian judge has ruled that Victor Wade’s daughter, Dianne McKenney, should inherit the bulk of his estate, rejecting his sons’ argument that the gift was conditional on caring for their mother. The dispute centred on Victor’s homemade will and the phrase “for the purpose of” caring for his wife, Ivy, who died before him.
Victor and Ivy had been married for 71 years by 2018, and Justice Michael Meek invoked *The Notebook* when describing their relationship. Victor died in 2023, aged 96, leaving an estate worth about $3.8 million; his will gave each of his three sons $5,000 and left the remainder to Dianne, who had cared for her parents. He had also written that he had provided for his sons during his lifetime, while evidence from the nephew who helped draft the will was scrutinised in court.
- Daughter inherits the bulk of her father’s $3.8 million estate.
- His three sons were each left $5,000.
- The court examined whether the gift depended on caring for his late wife.
New here? Start with this
Victor Wade’s will divided his estate between his four children, leaving each of his three sons $5,000 and the remainder to his daughter, Dianne McKenney. He had written that he had already provided for his sons during his lifetime, while McKenney had cared for him and his wife, Ivy.
The dispute turned on the wording of Wade’s homemade will, which referred to the money being “for the purpose of” caring for Ivy. His sons argued that this made their sister’s inheritance dependent on looking after their mother, who died before Wade. The court considered the will’s wording and evidence about how it was prepared to decide what Wade intended.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
The will named Dianne as the main beneficiary, and the judge could reasonably read “for the purpose of” caring for Ivy as explaining Victor’s reason for the gift rather than making it conditional on Ivy outliving him. Victor’s statement that he had already provided for his sons, together with Dianne’s care for her parents, supports giving effect to the clear overall pattern of his wishes.
The case against
The sons could reasonably argue that the phrase “for the purpose of” caring for Ivy set a condition on Dianne’s inheritance, so that the remainder should not pass to her once Ivy had died before Victor. Given the homemade will and the disputed evidence about its drafting, they could also argue that the court should be cautious about treating the wording as an unambiguous expression of Victor’s intentions.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Australian couple’s 74-year ‘The Notebook’ style love story ends in bitter $3.8million will war: Why a judge ruled three sons get just $5,000 while the daughter inherits a fortune”.