Sunshine Coast deceased estate feud over Eudlo land in Supreme Court

A typo about land in the will of a large Sunshine Coast deceased estate has become the centre of a court battle.

A typo in the will of a deceased estate has landed in the Supreme Court. Picture: NewsWire/ Glenn Campbell

A typo in the will of a deceased estate has landed in the Supreme Court, with one applicant arguing the error meant certain parcels of the large property fell to residue.

The decision in relation to the application brought by the executors of the will of the deceased estate of Joyce McGilChrist, Drew and Paul McGilchrist, was delivered in the Supreme Court of Queensland on Friday, May 30.

Property data shows executors of the will, Drew and Paul McGilchrist, are the landowners for a 26ha property in Eudlo.

Court documents show a small typographical error in the will meant the parcels of land intended to be gifted were incorrectly named.

“Prior to the death of the testator, small parts of those two lots were resumed and new titles issued so that there was no longer land described as “Lot 3 on SP158563” and “Lot 8 on SP 147516”,” the court documents stated.

A typo in the will of a deceased estate has landed in the Supreme Court, with one applicant arguing the error meant certain parcels of the large property fell to residue. Picture: Thinkstock/istock

“The first respondent took the position that as there was now no land described as “Lot 3 on SP 158563” and no land described as “Lot 8 on SP 147516”, the gift of the land that remained after the resumption failed and, therefore, those parcels of land fell to residue.”

Of the three respondents to the application, only one argued the error meant the land fell to residue.

Supreme Court judge Peter Davis said the claim made by the first respondent was “not a reasonable” one.

“The suggestion that the gift of the land should fail because a small part of the two lots had been resumed was baseless,” Justice Davis said.

Justice Davis also ordered the respondents costs be covered by the estate on an indemnity basis, but not the costs of the first respondent.

Both Drew and Paul McGilchrist were contacted for comment by this publication along with one of the respondents.

Originally published as Sunshine Coast deceased estate feud over Eudlo land in Supreme Court