Wills are often prepared at a single moment in time, reflecting a person’s circumstances as they exist on that day. For better or worse, life rarely stands still. Changes to assets, family arrangements and external events can all affect how a will operates.
The recent Queensland Supreme Court decision in Mann v Mann [2024]QSC 50 highlights the consequences that can arise when a will does not keep pace with changing circumstances.
The facts in Mann v Mann
In Mann v Mann, the deceased, Mr Geoffrey Mann, owned a cane farming property near Cairns, at Mill Road, Edmonton “the Mill Road Farm”. In October 2015, Mr Mann made a will leaving, among other properties, the Mill Road Farm to his adult children, while the residue of his estate was left to his wife.
At the time the will was made, a significant portion of the Mill Road Farm (approximately 40%) had been compulsorily acquired by the Queensland Government, and part payment of the compensation had already been received. Two unexpected events occurred that were (unsurprisingly) not accounted for in the 2015 Will:
When he made his Will in 2015, Mr. Mann believed that the land resumed by the State was permanently gone and that substantial compensation would be paid in the future. He was not to know that the State Government would later revoke the resumption and that the land would be returned, and that the total compensation would never be realised.
Nor was he to know that after his death in 2016, a further, smaller portion of the land was also subject to a proposed resumption by the local council.
These events unsurprisingly resulted in a dispute between Mr Mann’s widow and one of his children about who was entitled to the returned land and the compensation monies.
The problem that arose
The central problem in Mann v Mann was ambiguity. Mr Mann’s will described the Mill Road Farm by reference to specific lot numbers and also referred to “the proceeds of sale” and “the income” from the property as it was in 2015. However, it did not contemplate the unusual situation where a government resumption would later be revoked after his death.
Because of these post-will events, it was unclear whether:
- the land that revested in the estate following the revocation of the State resumption formed part of the specific gift to the children; and
- the compensation paid for the council resumption fell within the meaning of “proceeds of sale” or “income”, and therefore whether it formed part of the specific gift of land or the residue of the estate.
The Court was required to apply established principles of will interpretation. Justice Henry reaffirmed that the task of the Court is to ascertain the meaning of the words actually used by the testator, read as a whole and given their ordinary meaning unless the context indicates otherwise. Although a will is said to “speak from the date of death”, it must be construed having regard to the circumstances known to the testator at the time it was made.
The Armchair principle
A well-established principle of will interpretation is the “armchair principle” in which the court places itself in the armchair of the will maker to best understand what was meant by the words, based on what the testator understood at the time.
Where a will is ambiguous, section 33C of the Succession Act 1981 (Qld) permits the Court to consider extrinsic evidence to assist in interpretation. In this case, the Court found that the description of the Mill Road property was ambiguous, allowing recourse to such evidence, which included the file notes of the solicitor who drafted the will as well as conversations between the beneficiaries and the testator before his passing.
The Court’s Decision
Ultimately, the Court held that:
- the land returned following the revocation of the State resumption did not form part of the property gifted to the children; and
- the council resumption compensation was not “proceeds of sale” or “income” under the will and therefore fell into the residue of the estate.
As Justice Henry explained, compulsory acquisition compensation is not the same as proceeds from a contract for sale, nor can it sensibly be characterised as income derived from ongoing ownership.
What does this mean for your will?
Mann v Mann serves as a reminder that a will should be treated as a living document that evolves over time. A will that is clear and effective when it is first drafted can quickly become uncertain when circumstances change.
If your existing will disposes of real property, have you considered:
- What will a significant change in the form or value of that property mean for the overall distribution of your estate?
- How might your will account for such an event and maintain the desired split of assets between your beneficiaries?
Although the revocation of a government resumption after death is highly unusual, the case demonstrates a broader truth: changes to assets, property boundaries, ownership structures, or external legal events can fundamentally alter how a will operates. Most people will experience changes in their circumstances, whether through property transactions, family changes, or unforeseen events.
When a will is not precisely worded or kept up to date, the consequences are often costly. Disputes may require court intervention, leading to significant legal expenses, delays in estate administration, emotional strain, and long-lasting damage to family relationships. In many cases, these outcomes could have been avoided through timely review and careful drafting.
How we can help
Ultimately, the best way to ensure that your final wishes are respected is to have a well-drafted and up-to-date will that accurately reflects your current circumstances and intentions.
Our experienced Wills and Estates team at Rostron Carlyle Lawyers can provide tailored advice, assist with regular reviews of your estate plan, and ensure that your will is drafted with clarity and foresight. By taking a proactive approach now, you can reduce the risk of uncertainty, disputes, and unintended outcomes in the future.
If you would like assistance reviewing or updating your will, contact Michael Sing to discuss your options.
The blog published by Rostron Carlyle is intended as general information only and is not legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the blog posts, the reader understands there is no solicitor-client relationship between the reader and the blog published. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a legal practitioner, and readers are urged to consult Rostron Carlyle on any legal queries concerning a specific situation.
