The ugliest family inheritance battles in Victoria’s courts

Forged wills, million-dollar battles and even fighting over your mum’s body — these are some of the strangest estate fights.

The cliche goes that blood is thicker than water, but the Supreme Court sees time and again how quickly that can change when cold hard cash is on the line.

From forged wills to million-dollar battles, and even fighting over your dead mum’s body, some of the strangest scandals come before our courts every year.

And there are only going to be more of them.

Figures show that between 600 to 800 cases are filed in Victoria’s Supreme Court each financial year across two separate lists that deal with probate, deceased estates and land disputes.

And despite strong efforts to get many of those resolved in the past year, there are more than 700 matters now waiting to be heard.

Check out some of the more bizarre cases to hit our courts in the past year.

MURDER?

In one of the stranger family fights, two brothers were at war over whether their late mother’s body should be kept as evidence of murder.

The siblings — both named executors of her will — were feuding just last month over whether to lay their mum’s body to rest.

One brother called for her to be cremated, while the other demanded she be kept for a future murder probe.

Two siblings went to war over whether to lay their mum’s body to rest.

The woman, in her 70s, died in hospital with Covid-19 and other comorbidities in June.

But one of her sons refused to accept the coroner’s ruling that she died of natural causes.

He called for her body to be “available as evidence in any subsequent investigation into the conduct of the hospital”.

He had also taken over the family company and withdrawn funds, Supreme Court documents show.

Meanwhile, the funeral parlour that held the woman’s body was added as a party to the saga, as it raised concerns that the family’s indecision was creating a health and safety risk for its staff.

The judge said that he was “not satisfied” that retaining the woman’s body was necessary for any future investigation, and concluded that her cremation shouldn’t be delayed.

FAMOUS FACES

If you want to spot celebrities in Melbourne, you could do worse than stepping into a courtroom.

The city has a long history of high-profile Melburnians playing out their family drama before a judge.

Just last month, Brynne Gordon launched legal action against the estate of her late ex-husband, disgraced doctor and former Sydney Swans owner Geoffrey Edelsten.

Ms Gordon claimed she was left with nothing following his 2021 death, despite him leaving chunks of money to friends and associates.

Attached to the court file were emails, including the $50m marriage deal Edelsten made to her just two weeks after their first date.

Brynne Gordon and Geoffrey Edelsten pose for a photograph as they cut their wedding cake in 2009.

The ‘$50mplus proposal’ email Brynne allegedly received from Edelsten two weeks after the couple met on a blind date.

Among disturbing allegations during their relationship was that he strangled her, stole her ADHD medication for his own use, and was obsessed with online dating sites.

Ms Gordon is suing his estate for proper maintenance and support.

In another sad celebrity case to hit the courts this year, late cricket legend Dean Jones’ love child sued for a piece of his estate.

Koby Dean Hamilton was born in 2009 to mum Kerri-Anne Hamilton, Mr Jones’ long-term lover.

But Mr Jones’ wife Jane said “Koby’s claim is doomed to fail”, claiming that the international cricketer and commentator was broke when he died, aged 59.

Instead, she offered the boy “some items of memorabilia”.

Koby wasn’t mentioned in Mr Jones’ 2012 will, and a $615 monthly child support payment ended upon his tragic death in India in 2020.

It’s understood the fight continues.

Kerri-Anne Hamilton posted photos of son Koby and cricketer Dean Jones. Picture: Instagram

Jones’ wife Jane claims her husband was broke when he died. Picture: Getty Images

Another famous sporting name was sighted on the court list this past year, when former AFL star Daniel Giansiracusa and his wife Kelly were accused of being lavish over-spenders in a family will.

Her late father, Peter Tisdale, left another daughter with a bigger slice of his $6m estate.

In his will, made seven days before his March 2021 death, he wrote of his “serious concerns about the spending habits of my daughter Kelly Giansiracusa and her husband”.

He went on to claim that were the former Western Bulldogs glamour couple to receive more funds from his estate, “then such funds would be dissipated quickly and be used either solely or predominantly to fund the luxurious lifestyle of her and her husband”.

Amid the dispute, the couple went to the Supreme Court over a $10.2-12.75m parcel of Clyde North land.

The property was left to a trust that they had no control of, which they claimed they contributed $400,000 to help buy in 2011.

Kelly and Daniel Giansiracusa were accused of being lavish overspenders in a family will.

A BULLDOZER OF A SPAT

It’s not often a family feud leads to criminal charges.

But that’s what happened when two idiot brothers hired an excavator to destroy their own mother’s Murtoa house to ensure their sister didn’t “get a cent”.

Malcolm and Garry Taylor, both in their 50s, even filmed themselves ripping down the family home the day it went to auction, with the vision later used by prosecutors to prove their guilt.

Malcolm and Garry Taylor unleashed a ‘tirade of destruction’ on the family home. Picture: Victoria County Court March

That footage — showing the pair laughing as they did “renovations” on the home and rolled the water tank down the main street — was tendered in court and as it made up part of the evidence, it could be released to the media.

The story and vision of the moronic duo, first revealed by the Herald Sun, garnered global media attention, with Judge Michael Cahill telling the pair: “You were laughing while you destroyed your and your sister’s inheritance. Now, the world is laughing at you for your stupidity”.

They were fined $10,000 each.

WHEN ART GOES MIA

Missing artwork was the subject of a court spat between the children of one of Australia’s most acclaimed painters.

Charles Blackman — known for his 1950s series’ Schoolgirls and Alice in Wonderland — gifted his prized collection to a family trust before he died in 2018.

But the corporate trustee claimed that sculptures, prints and artworks worth in excess of $700,000 were missing.

Three of his six children, Beatrice, Felix and Christabel Blackman, were accused of refusing to return dozens of artworks and taken to court in 2021.

The Blackman Children’s Trust sought more than $800,000 from ARIA award-winning singer-songwriter and artist Beatrice “Bertie” Blackman, $732,000 from Christabel, an artist, and $69,000 from Felix, an architect and graphic designer.

Christabel Blackman and Bertie Blackman at their father’s exhibition in 2018. Picture: Adam Yip

But the trio hit back with a counterclaim, demanding the trustees be removed because they were “unfit”.

The siblings denied they were in possession of any missing prints, but said they did provide some to a studio for restoration.

It wasn’t the first time the Blackman Children’s Trust was involved in a court battle.

In 2010, the trust joined Mr Blackman in a Supreme Court fight over two fake drawings attributed to the artist.

A fan had paid $13,500 for the works, which were found to be “fakes masquerading as the genuine article” and ordered to be destroyed.

“What is more, they were deliberately contrived to deceive unsuspecting members of the public in this manner,” Justice Peter Vickery found.

Back then, the BC Trust, which was “established for the benefit of Blackman and his children”, had some 3000 works, with pieces sold off to support the care of the aging artist.

FORGERY FURORE

It was far from the first time the name Frank Cassar appeared in Victoria’s justice centres in March this year.

Dubbed “Australia’s worst landlord”, the man with an estate worth $15m was no stranger to scandal.

But even in his death, his name continued to hit the headlines when his family confessed to forging his will in 2011.

What was first an agreed plot between Cassar’s partner Sandra and their children swiftly fell into a bitter dispute a decade after their deception.

Sandra admitted in court to buying a will kit weeks after his death upon realising he never made one.

Eldest son Michael was named as sole beneficiary to the family’s Kew home and seven Fitzroy properties — the subject of dozens of civil court fights with tenants — despite him being estranged from his father for six years amid fights about money.

But years after the forgery, the estate still wasn’t split as promised and the family’s fight descended into threats and violence.

Supreme Court judge Steven Moore revoked the will after finding it was a fake and labelled the whole mess as “scandalous”.

Norman Maddock’s lawyer was criticised for signing off on his will, which underwent major changes not long before his death.

HAIRDRESSER FIGHT

It’s never good when a court hears of dramatic changes in someone’s will just before they die.

So it was no surprise to see which way a judge ruled after hearing a war veteran altered his will three times to leave a vast amount of his $3.5m estate to a hairdresser over his family.

Norman Maddock always ensured his wife Shirley, who had dementia, was cared for.

But after the 97-year-old attended legal appointments in the 15 months before his death with Marcia Bailey, the hairdresser stood to inherit his $1.2m Bentleigh East home and was named sole executor of his estate.

The $600,000 legacy to his wife of more than 40 years was halved and a clause was added that she had “advanced dementia and has very ample and sufficient monies for her needs”.

Medical records show the veteran, who died in June 2020, had become paranoid, was in poor health, suffered PTSD and a psychotic disorder.

Supreme Court judge Kate McMillan found the decorated soldier and OAM “lacked testamentary capacity” when he changed his will and was likely “vulnerable or impressional as a result of his circumstances and became dependent on (Ms Bailey)”.

Her Honour criticised Mr Maddock’s lawyer for signing off on the will changes, stating he “should have been more suspicious”.