Wills Trusts & Estates keyed to Dukeminier
Lambeff v. Farmers Co-operative Executors & Trustees Ltd
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
George Lambeff executed a will that disposed property to the defendants, Nicholas and Christopher Lambeff, his two sons from his de facto second marriage to Barbara Lambeff. He did not make any testamentary dispositions to the plaintiff. The deceased abandoned the plaintiff at ten years old and did not support her financially. The plaintiff sought provision from her father’s estate under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act of 1972. Under the act, a person domiciled in State that would be entitled to a claim of benefit under the act and receive a provision from a deceased’s estate the Court thinks fit for the maintenance, education or advancement of the person entitled if that person was left without adequate provision for his proper maintenance, education or advancement in life. The Court had the power to refuse to make the order in favor of any person such a person’s character or conduct way such as to disentitled him from the benefit of the Act. At the time of the deceased’s death, the defendants had little assets and families to support. The deceased’s estate was not large. The plaintiff attempted to make re-establish contact with her father seven years after he abandoned her, but he never responded to her letters that were written at about five yearly intervals. The plaintiff suspected the lack of response was due to the animosity he harbored towards her mother and the influence his current wife had over him.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.