The daughter of a north shore doyenne who was left out of her mother's will due to favouritism has successfully sued her younger sister for a slice of the $2 million estate.
In the NSW Supreme Court this week, a judge found that the 73-year-old daughter needed help to make ends meet and was granted $425,000 for ongoing expenses including $2615 for pilates and water aerobics.
Clarice Winifred Woods, a member of a Moree mayoral family, moved to Sydney in the 1940s and died in 2015, aged 99.
She was estranged from her daughter Winifred Jodell and left her entire estate to her other daughter, Helen Woods, 66, including a $1.8 million home in Turramurra's Bannockburn Road.
Ms Jodell told the court she had never had a close relationship with her mother. As a child, she was rebellious and was not treated lovingly. She said her mother didn't attend her graduation or first wedding and disapproved of her divorce.
The divide only deepened after the death of Mrs Woods' husband, Jack, in 1996.
Ms Jodell felt her mother had deliberately kept her in the dark about her father's ill health until just before he died. In return, Mrs Woods felt her daughter was unsympathetic.
Mr Woods left his small estate of $86,168 to Ms Jodell, who refused to give his car to his widow unless she received certain belongings of her father's in return.
"I suppose my father's will is in a way confirmation for me that love and support have not been expressed in an even-handed way in my parents' family," she wrote in a letter to the family. "While it does appear I am being favoured, perhaps it was a corrective step."
Three days after his death, she visited her mother to ask about his will and was told to leave and never come back.
"No sympathy for me at this time," Mrs Woods wrote to daughter Helen in 2003. "It seemed that after 56 years of marriage and some of those years were very hard, I had no rights."
The pair didn't see each other again until just before Mrs Woods' death.
However, crucially, Ms Jodell produced three letters she wrote to her mother over the years to share news, inquire about her wellbeing and attempt to meet up.
Her mother never responded, telling Helen she couldn't get past the conduct after her husband's death.
"Forgiveness is not the issue nor do I wish to punish her. I just wish to be left alone," she said.
After her mother's death, Ms Jodell made an application in court for family provision orders.
In such cases, a court can determine whether an eligible person has been left with inadequate provisions for "proper maintenance, education or advancement in life" and, if so, how much can be taken from an estate for those purposes.
Ms Jodell argued that her age pension did not cover her needs, which included $300,000 to cover the shortfall from the sale of her Castlemaine, Victoria home for the move to a Melbourne retirement village, $43,590 to buy a new car and about $8289 a year including money for pilates, water aerobics and garden maintenance.
However, Ms Woods argued that her sister was not entitled to provisions because she was estranged.
She noted Ms Jodell's shortfall was only $6 a week and this could be avoided if she didn't travel overseas so much.
Justice Philip Hallen found that the estrangement did not completely negate Ms Jodell's need for financial help.
"I am of the view that the deceased's disappointment, as a wise and just testatrix, should not have blinded her to the needs of one of her two children, for maintenance or advancement in life," he said.
The letters showed that the plaintiff did not want the relationship to end and, therefore, the mother's obligations were not relieved.
Ms Jodell may have acted callously after Mr Woods' death, the judge said, but "each was entitled to expect the support of the other at that time".
"Each appears to have felt that the other did not provide that support. The difference between them was that, subsequently, [Ms Jodell] did not wish to end, completely, their relationship."