Superannuation death benefits continue to be problematic for executors - Brine v Carter [2015] SASC 205

Posted by: Kylie Shaw

Professor Brine was in a de facto relationship with Ms Carter when he passed away. His Will named Ms Carter, along with his three adult sons from a previous relationship, as joint Executors of his Estate.

In his will, Professor Brine provided a life interest for Ms Carter in his principal residence and another property and gave the rest of his estate to his three sons and grandchildren.

Professor Brine had two superannuation accounts with UniSuper. One account was structured so that the only beneficiary of that superannuation could be a spouse. The second was an accumulation account from which a spouse, child, dependant or the member’s Estate could benefit.

Rather than making a binding death benefit nomination with UniSuper, Professor Brine had written a letter to them expressing his wish for the beneficiary of his superannuation to be his Estate. This was recorded with UniSuper however, given the form it was in, it was not enforceable.

Ms Carter learnt of the two superannuation accounts following Professor Brine’s death, and made applications to UniSuper to have the balance of each account paid directly to her.

For some months, Ms Carter was found to have failed to disclose the extent of the super benefits to the three sons and that the estate and each of them was a potential beneficiary of one of the accounts.

Once the sons found out about the super and the potential to claim, the three sons claimed the benefit as executors of the estate. Notwithstanding their claim, UniSuper exercised its discretion in favour of Ms Carter.

The Court found that, despite the misrepresentations made by Ms Carter and breach of her fiduciary duties as an executor up to the point in time when the three sons discovered her deceit, thereafter the actions of the sons in making a claim on behalf of the estate (without Ms Carter's involvement) effectively meant that they had accepted that she was not acting as an executor in the matter so that she was therefore entitled to pursue her claim for payment in her own personal capacity and not as a co-executor. Since she was no longer acting as an executor, she was therefore not in breach of her duties as such, and therefore was entitled to receive the payment herself without having to account to the estate for it.

Ironically, if the three sons did not make a separate competing claim (which effectively operated as a consent to Ms Carter claiming in her own right), she would have been held to be in breach of her duties as an executor and would have had to pay the money to the estate. As a result, despite Ms Carter's dishonest conduct, she won the case.

This case illustrates the importance of a valid binding death benefit nomination if you have specific wishes as to how your death benefit should be paid by the trustee of the Fund, as well as some of the issues that arise for executors who are also beneficiaries in claiming those death benefit payments.