Federal Court Distributes Property Sale Proceeds After Joint Owner's Death
📌 In brief
In this case, the Federal Court ordered the distribution of money from a property sale after one owner's death. The court made orders for the a person and a person to be joined as respondents in accordance with bankruptcy and probate laws.
⚖️ Legal holding
A court may make an order distributing the net proceeds of a jointly owned property sold after one owner's death, in accordance with bankruptcy rules and probate laws.
📖 Technical summary
The Federal Court made orders for distribution of net proceeds from a property sale, joining a person and a person as respondents.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Federal Court of Australia made orders for the distribution of net proceeds from a property sale, joining executors and trustees as respondents. The court considered bankruptcy rules and probate laws to determine the appropriate distribution.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Allowed
Federal Court of Australia
[NAME] of the Property of [NAME] ([NAME]); in the matter of [RESPONDENT] [NAME] ([NAME]) v [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] (No 2) [2023] FCA 206 File number(s): NSD 725 of 2019
Judgment of: GOODMAN J
Date of judgment: 8 March 2023
Date of publication of reasons: 10 March 2023
Catchwords: [NAME]'s joint interest in property with late wife – probate granted and property sold – order made for distribution of proceeds of sale
Legislation: Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW), ss 44, 61
Cases cited: Ex parte [COMPANY]; Re Kenniff (1955) 56 SR(NSW) 35 [NAME] of the Property of [NAME] ([NAME]); in the matter of [RESPONDENT] L [RESPONDENT] ([NAME]) v [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] [2019] FCA 1311
Division: General Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Number of paragraphs: 16
Date of hearing: 8 March 2023
Solicitor for the Applicant: [redacted]
Solicitor for the Respondent: [redacted] IN THE MATTER OF [NAME] ([NAME]) BETWEEN: [NAME] OF THE PROPERTY OF [NAME] ([NAME]) Applicant
[RESPONDENT] Respondent
order made by: GOODMAN J DATE OF ORDER: 8 MARCH 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to rule 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) ("the Rules"), [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] as [NAME] of the Deceased Estate of [RESPONDENT] be joined as the second respondent.
2. Pursuant to rule 9.05 of the Rules, the [NAME] of the Property of [RESPONDENT], a [NAME] be joined as the third respondent. 3. [RESPONDENT] and [RESPONDENT] [NAME] as [NAME] of [ADDRESS], West Nowra, distribute the Net Proceeds held by them in an interest bearing account pursuant to Order 5(f)(ii) of the Orders made on 29 August 2019, as follows: (a) $34,080.25 to the [NAME] of the [NAME] Estate of [NAME]; and (b) the balance to the [NAME] of the Deceased Estate of [NAME]. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GOODMAN J 1 On 8 March 2023, I made orders for the distribution of the net proceeds of the sale of a property at Nowra in New South Wales, which proceeds are held on trust by the [NAME]. I also made orders for the joinder of several parties as respondents. Set out below are my reasons for doing so. I refer below to members of the [NAME] family ([NAME], his late wife [NAME] and their four children – [NAME] and [NAME]) by their first names for convenience and without intending any disrespect.
BACKGROUND 2 As at February 2012, [NAME] and [NAME] owned the property jointly. 3 In February 2012, [NAME] became [NAME] and the [NAME] were appointed as [NAME] of his [NAME] estate. 4 On 6 July 2015, [NAME] passed away leaving a will. The beneficiaries under her will are her four children. Upon her passing, her estate was deemed to be vested in the respondent, the [NAME] and [RESPONDENT], pursuant to s 61 of the Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW). 5 In July 2016, [NAME] became [NAME]. The [NAME] were also appointed as [NAME] of his [NAME] estate. 6 On 9 May 2019, the [NAME] commenced this proceeding by originating application, seeking orders appointing themselves as [NAME] of the property and facilitating the corresponding sale and distribution of funds. 7 On 7 June 2019, the respondent notified the [NAME]' solicitor that as the respondent was not administering [COUNSEL] estate, and as the object of s 61 of the Act is to "… put the title in the Public Trustee and to hold the position in statu quo until a personal representative is appointed…" (citing Ex parte [COMPANY]; [NAME] (1955) 56 SR(NSW) 35 at 40 per Street CJ, Maxwell and Herron JJ), it proposed to take no active role in the proceeding. The respondent has not filed a notice of [RESPONDENT]. 8 On 29 August 2019, [RESPONDENT] J made a series of declarations and orders in this proceeding. Relevantly for present purposes his Honour appointed the [NAME] as [NAME] for the sale of the property and made orders for the distribution of the proceeds of sale of the property: [NAME] of the Property of [NAME] L [NAME] ([NAME]); in the matter of [RESPONDENT] [NAME] ([NAME]) v [NAME] and [RESPONDENT] [2019] FCA 1311 ([NAME] (No 1)). Order 5(f) was in the following terms:
5. Following completion of the sale of the Property by the [NAME], the settlement funds shall be distributed by the [NAME] in the following order: ... f. Finally, the remaining balance of the sale proceeds ("the Net Proceeds") be divided equally and distributed as follows: (i) one-half of the Net Proceeds be paid to the Applicant; and (ii) one-half of the Net Proceeds be paid into an interest bearing account to be held by the [NAME] on trust for the Deceased Estate of [NAME], pending further order of the Court. … 9 As [NAME] J noted at [2] of [NAME] (No 1), as at the date of his orders, no application for probate in respect of [NAME] will had been made. 10 On 10 November 2020, the [NAME] sold the property. The proceeds of sale have been held in an interest bearing account in accordance with order 5(f)(ii). 11 On 15 June 2022, probate was granted in respect of [NAME] will. [NAME] and [NAME] were appointed as the [NAME] of [NAME] deceased estate. Thus, the [NAME] are now in a position to seek the further order contemplated by order 5(f)(ii). 12 The [NAME] (in their various capacities) and the [NAME] have liaised and reached an agreement regarding a distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the property. In essence, they have agreed that [NAME[NAME] should receive $34,080.25 of the proceeds of sale, and the [NAME] receive the balance, to be distributed to the other beneficiaries under the will. 13 On 27 October 2022, the [NAME] wrote to the respondent enclosing a copy of orders they proposed to seek from the Court, and requesting that the respondent confirm whether there was any objection to the proposed orders and to indicate whether the respondent wished to be heard. No response was received from the respondent. 14 On 3 February 2023, the [NAME] filed an interlocutory application seeking orders for the joinder of (1) the [NAME] and (2) themselves, in their capacity as [NAME] of [NAME[NAME], together with the following order: An order that [NAME] and [NAME] [NAME] as [NAME] of [ADDRESS], West Nowra, distribute the Net Proceeds held by them in an interest bearing account pursuant to Order 5(f)(ii) of the Orders made on 29 August 2019, as follows: (a) $34,080.25 to the [NAME] of the [NAME] Estate of [NAME]; and (b) the balance to the [NAME] of the Deceased Estate of [NAME].
CONSIDERATION
Joinder 15 Both the [NAME] and the [NAME] (in their capacity as [NAME] of [NAME[NAME]) consented to their joinder as respondents. I was satisfied that each should be joined. In particular: (1) as probate has now been granted in respect of [NAME] estate, vesting her real and personal property in the [NAME] pursuant to s 44 of the Act, the [NAME] are now (and since the grant of probate have been) proper parties to this proceeding; and (2) the [NAME] in their capacity as [NAME] of [NAME[NAME] should be joined as they are persons directly affected by the orders proposed.
Distribution 16 I was satisfied that it was appropriate to make the distribution order sought in the following circumstances: (1) a further order is contemplated by order 5(1)(f)(ii) and is necessary to allow for the distribution of the proceeds of sale of the property which are currently held on trust by the [NAME] for the benefit of [NAME] estate; (2) by s 44 of the Act, [RESPONDENT] estate has vested in the [NAME] and the respondent has no role to play in the proceeding; (3) all interested parties consent to the proposed distribution; and (4) the respondent is aware of the proceeding and has elected not to participate in it. The respondent is also on notice of the present application. I certify that the preceding sixteen (16) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman.
Associate: Dated: 10 March 2023
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Federal Court of Australia Mortgagee Allowed to Calculate Debt After Trustee Disclaimer
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Appoints New Liquidators for Seven Companies
- Federal Court of Australia Property Transfer Voided in Bankruptcy Case
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Allows Virtual Meetings and Software Use in Virgin Australia'…
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Grants Extension for Second Creditors' Meeting
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Extends Creditor Meeting Adjournment Period
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Orders Security for Costs in Appeal
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Grants Extension for Second Creditors Meeting
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Allows Sale of Company Property Subject to Security Interests
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Rules on Oppressive Conduct in Shareholder Disputes
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court: Unliquidated Damages Not Provable in Bankruptcy
- Federal Court of Australia Federal Court Declares Notice of Objection Invalid in Bankruptcy Case
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The use of virtual meetings and specific software for managing creditor information during the administration process is justified.
- An administrator may dispose of a company's property under the Corporations Act if it is subject to a security interest, provided certain conditions are met.
- A court may grant leave to replace a liquidator when appropriate and in the interests of creditors.
- Administrators can extend the convening period for a second meeting of creditors under specific conditions to prevent prejudice.
- A trustee's notice of objection to a bankrupt's discharge must comply with sections 149C and 149F of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Federal Court ordered the distribution of net proceeds from a property sale after one owner's death.
Who was involved?
Executors, trustees, and parties affected by bankruptcy proceedings were involved.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on bankruptcy rules and probate laws to ensure proper distribution of funds.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Probate and Administration Act 1898 (NSW) ss 44, 61 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The court focused on ensuring compliance with bankruptcy and probate laws for proper distribution of funds.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision supported the claimant's request for distribution orders.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should seek court orders to ensure proper distribution of property sale proceeds under bankruptcy and probate laws.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The court considered the property's sale, bankruptcy proceedings, and probate documentation.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Decisions can generally be appealed to a higher court if there are grounds for appeal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to consult with a qualified solicitor for legal advice and representation in such cases.
