Queensland practitioners will find important guidance in this recent District Court decision about how courts assess competing conduct in family provision claims, even where no formal undue influence challenge is made.
In Madjeric v Madjeric [2025] QDC 126, Eric Madjeric successfully obtained $250,000 from his late mother’s estate despite formidable obstacles: he had received over $400,000 in lifetime gifts, faced allegations of financial misconduct as attorney, competed with his brother for limited estate assets, and confronted a statutory declaration by the testator essentially disinheriting him.
The case provides a revealing study of how courts navigate competing narratives of conduct and assess the weight to be given to testators’ explanatory statements.
Background
The testator, Bernadina Simona Cia, died aged 96 in February 2023. Her final will left everything to her older son Lou (then 78) or his family, excluding her younger son Eric (then 69) entirely.
The estate consisted primarily of a 50% interest in investment flats at Gaythorne and savings, with a net value of approximately $870,000.
Both sons were retired with reasonable financial positions. Eric received a DVA pension and had net assets of approximately $1,228,000 (including his home). Lou had net assets of approximately $2,868,000 across Australia and the UK.
The statutory declaration
Central to Lou’s defence was a statutory declaration made by the testator on 8 February 2022 stating Eric “has already received more than his fair share from my estate, and is therefore entitled to nothing more as his inheritance.” The declaration included serious allegations that Eric, while acting as attorney, “requested and accepted funds from me, and removed funds from my bank accounts for his own personal use from 2014 to 2021, contrary to Queensland Public Guardian guidelines.”
The court’s sophisticated analysis
Sheridan DCJ’s treatment of the statutory declaration demonstrates how courts assess such documents in context. Rather than accepting it at face value, Her Honour engaged in detailed analysis:
First, the court accepted evidence that the testator “developed a paranoia and distrust of others and had accused many people of stealing, including Lou, and that those allegations were unsubstantiated” [146].
Second, Her Honour examined the circumstances of the declaration’s creation, finding: “Given that tendency, it is likely that she accepted what had been told to her by Lou regarding what Lou considered to be unauthorised withdrawals… I consider the correspondence on that issue was driven by Lou and not his mother; albeit accepted by his mother and forming the basis for a belief that additional funds had been received by Eric in her lifetime” [147-148].
Notably, no formal undue influence claim was made or proven. Yet the court’s analysis effectively discounted the statutory declaration based on circumstantial evidence of influence—evidence that would never meet the strict “actual coercion” test for invalidating a will.
Comparative conduct
The decision demonstrates how courts weigh competing conduct even where neither party’s behaviour is formally challenged.
Eric’s conduct included receiving substantial lifetime gifts ($405,000), making withdrawals as attorney that became disputed, and having limited contact with the testator in the final 18-24 months (though this was characterised as enforced by Lou).
Lou’s conduct proved more problematic. He admitted taking money from a joint flats account during unemployment (2012-2015), initiated legal correspondence regarding Eric’s attorney withdrawals, and crucially, refused to allow Eric access to the property where the testator lived. This prohibition extended to Eric’s children visiting their dying grandmother.
When asked why he restricted access even during palliative care, Lou admitted: “I didn’t trust him… I thought he might do something that I didn’t want him to do” [60].
Her Honour’s finding was significant: “I do not accept Lou’s evidence that he would have walked the testator to the gate in order for her to spend time with Eric. Given his evidence as to his total lack of trust in Eric, which extended to a total lack of trust in Eric’s children to a point where he did not wish Eric’s children to visit their dying grandmother, I do not accept that Lou would have permitted, or assisted in permitting, visits by the testator with Eric of which he was aware” [150].
The pattern of will changes
The decision chronicles multiple will changes between 2019 and 2022, coinciding with periods when Lou and the testator were either reconciled or estranged. The court observed: “This does give some insight into the preparation by the testator of her various wills and her willingness at various times to change her allegiances. That behaviour further sheds light on the weight that should be given to the statutory declaration” [153].
The award
Despite Eric’s substantial lifetime gifts, the court found jurisdiction was enlivened and ordered provision of $250,000. Her Honour considered Eric’s continuing support of adult children, his health conditions requiring spousal care, and the lack of a “significant enough buffer against the contingencies of life” [155].
The court emphasized: “I accept Eric’s evidence that he had been told by the testator that Lou would refuse to allow Eric to come on to the Caboolture property… I do not accept that Lou would have permitted, or assisted in permitting, visits by the testator with Eric” [150].
Practical implications
This decision offers several important lessons for practitioners:
First, statutory declarations by testators are not determinative. Courts will examine the circumstances of their creation, the testator’s psychological state, and evidence of influence from competing beneficiaries.
Second, conduct operates bidirectionally in family provision claims. The competing beneficiary’s behaviour—particularly actions that isolated the testator from other family members—can significantly influence outcomes.
Third, evidence falling short of proving formal undue influence may nonetheless materially affect family provision analysis. Practitioners should investigate and document relationship dynamics, patterns of influence, and concerning circumstances even where a capacity challenge is not viable.
Fourth, lifetime gifts do not necessarily preclude further provision, particularly where the applicant continues to support adult children, faces health challenges, and lacks financial buffer for contingencies.
Finally, the case demonstrates judicial willingness to look behind formally valid wills where circumstances warrant scepticism, reflecting the inherent flexibility of the “wise and just testator” standard and the broad statutory language requiring courts to consider “all the circumstances.”
For estate planning, the case reinforces that statutory declarations offer limited protection where circumstances suggest influence or isolation of the testator, and that testators’ changing allegiances over time may indicate vulnerability to influence.
Practitioners acting for executors should scrutinize testamentary explanations critically and investigate the full context of competing family relationships. Those acting for applicants should document all evidence of influence, isolation, and suspicious circumstances, even where formal challenges to the will are not pursued.
This is the author’s summary of his full paper: An Analysis of Conduct, Undue Influence, and the Modern Family Provision Landscape. A full copy can be accessed here.
To submit a Perspectives piece for consideration for Proctor, email the editor.
Share this article