A recent NSW Supreme Court (Doric v Orec [2025] NSWSC 245) case offers a poignant look into how a mother's final wishes can tear a family apart, pitting sibling against sibling in a costly and emotionally draining legal battle.
Following the death of their mother, Bozica Orec, her three children—Michelle, Judy, and Darryl—found themselves in a bitter dispute over her estate. The primary asset was the family home in Regents Park, valued at around $1.5 million.
The conflict centred on two documents, both of which named Darryl as the sole beneficiary. Judy challenged both, arguing their mother lacked the capacity to understand them and that the circumstances surrounding their creation were suspicious.
The Two Disputed Wills
The 2001 Will: An informal, single-witnessed document created by Darryl before a family trip to Croatia. It stated that if anything happened to both parents, Darryl would inherit everything.
The 2016 Will: A more detailed document, also prepared by Darryl, which explicitly left the entire estate to him. It provided reasons, stating that the daughters had already received significant financial support during their parents' lives, while Darryl had contributed to building and maintaining the family home and had even saved it from being lost to legal fees after a car accident.
Judy argued that her mother, who primarily spoke Croatian, could not have understood the complex English legal language in the documents. She also contended that by 2016, Bozica was suffering from dementia, further clouding her capacity.
The Court's Deliberation
Justice Peden was tasked with untangling the family's history and assessing the credibility of the siblings' conflicting evidence. The judge emphasised the importance of contemporary documents and the need to look beyond a witness's demeanour, especially when family members "who think they are morally right, may subconsciously conjure up a legal right that did not exist."
After a thorough review, the court made several key findings:
The 2001 Will Was Valid: Despite its informal nature, the evidence showed Bozica understood it was her will and intended for it to take effect. The court preferred the evidence of Darryl and Michelle, who stated their mother was anxious about the trip and wanted a will in place.
Bozica's English Was Sufficient: Contrary to Judy's claims, the judge found that Bozica could speak and read enough English to understand the documents. She had held jobs, completed TAFE courses, and worked at Judy's childcare centre, all of which required a functional level of English.
The 2016 Will Was Also Valid and Superseded the 2001 Will: The court found that Bozica did have the mental capacity to make the 2016 will. The judge was critical of the medical evidence of dementia, which was largely based on Judy's own accounts to the doctor—accounts the judge found were "exaggerated." The reasons given in the will for favouring Darryl were found to be substantially accurate and reflected a long-standing intention of both parents.
No "Suspicious Circumstances": The fact that Darryl prepared the wills and was the main beneficiary was not, in itself, deemed suspicious. The court found the documents reflected Bozica's genuine and consistent wishes.
The Fallback Claim: A Lesson in Evidence
Had both wills failed, Darryl would have received a one-third share of the estate under intestacy rules. He made a further claim for a larger portion, seeking an additional $700,000.
This claim was firmly rejected. The court found Darryl's evidence about his financial need and inability to work was "limited and unsatisfactory." Crucially, he had enjoyed rent-free accommodation in his parents' home for most of his adult life—a significant financial benefit the court could not ignore. His claim failed because he did not prove that a one-third share would fail to provide for his proper maintenance.
The Takeaway
This case is a stark reminder of the importance of having a professionally drafted, properly executed will. While informal documents can sometimes be upheld, they often become a lightning rod for family disputes.
The ruling ultimately upheld the mother's wishes, finding that she knew what she was doing and intended for her son, who had supported her in her later years and lived in the home, to inherit it. The case underscores that courts will strive to give effect to a testator's clear intentions, even in the face of fierce family opposition.
The judge has asked the parties to agree on costs, hoping to prevent the estate from being further diminished by legal fees—a final, practical note in a saga that has already cost one family its harmony.
