Two members of a widow’s extended family are contesting her will after she left most of her $2 million estate to the Williamstown Hospital and Cancer Council Victoria.
Dorothy Ethel Gilmore died on July 10 last year, leaving 13 bequests totalling $60,000 and about $900,000 each to the hospital and council.
The will is being contested by a nephew and great nephew on her late husband’s side.
The father and son, Terence James Keating and Terrence John Keating, argue that Ms Gilmore had a moral duty to provide [financially]. Mr Keating snr was “surprised and disappointed when he learnt that he did not even get a mention in Dorothy’s will”, the Supreme Court heard.
Ms Gilmore had no children but was survived by seven nieces and nephews and 11 great-nieces and nephews on her side, and five nieces and nephews and four great-nieces and nephews on her late husband’s side.
Neither she nor her husband had any known surviving siblings. Ms Gilmore left 11 bequests of $5000, one of $3000 and one of $2000.
Williamstown Hospital, now under the auspices of Western Health, and Cancer Council Victoria were to receive the rest.
Mr Keating snr told the court he was like a son to Ms Gilmore and her late husband.
He said he would visit their house regularly and help them in their Footscray fruit shop during his lunch hour and after work before the shop closed in 1975.
The court heard that Mr Keating snr supported Ms Gilmore after her husband died in 2005 and visited her regularly in a nursing home and later in hospital at Footscray.
He is free from debt, has savings of about $16,000, and the age pension is his main income source. Mr Keating jnr, who received $5000 in the will, was in debt, the court heard.
In his summary judgment that the case should go to a full hearing of the Supreme Court, Judge David Derham said Mr Keating snr and his son had a close relationship with Ms Gilmore and a demonstrable need.
“The residuary beneficiaries [hospital and cancer council] are unable to demonstrate a competing need at all, let alone one greater than the plaintiffs,” he said.
The dispute will go to a full hearing of the Supreme Court at a date to be set.
