Belinda Brown* went to court not once, but twice to claim part of her grandfather’s $7.7 million estate.
“I’ve had cancer, I’ve been independent all my life and I’ve never had help from anyone,” she told Open Justice. “I don’t know why I’m locked out.”
The 45-year-old nurse and mother of three who live in Queensland was given nothing when her grandfather Richard died in 2018, according to an appeals court decision released this month.
A significant portion of the successful businessman’s fortune was bequeathed to his second wife. The rest was divided among his three children, five grandchildren, his first wife and his two stepsons.
Two other grandchildren, Belinda and her sister Rachel, received nothing, although Rachel was later given $20,000 as a settlement.
Belinda told the court that she had a good relationship with her grandfather until she was in her 20s, when her mother Danielle made allegations of abuse against Richard in 1996.
Richard denied the charges, which Danielle withdrew later that year in exchange for a $20,000 settlement, including a statement that the claims against her father were false and hurtful.
Still, Belinda said she felt it was “morally correct” to support her mother, causing her grandfather to abdicate and refuse to see her and her children.
Belinda’s uncle and stepmother disputed her story, saying that she had shown no interest in her grandfather, only visiting him once “some 30 years ago” and never again.
Notes from the lawyer who drafted the will with Richard while he was alive showed that he felt he had no connection with Belinda.
One of the lawyer’s handwritten notes read: “[Belinda] -Entire family left behind. To disappear. Surfers paradise? … doesn’t keep in touch.”
A Supreme Court judge in 2021 dismissed Belinda’s claim, saying it was understandable that a grandparent would treat a grandchild close to him differently than a grandchild with little or no contact.
She appealed the decision, saying the judge had misjudged her maintenance and support needs.
Her attorney Michael Locke claimed that Richard had made a “somewhat erratic decision” based on his alleged failure to keep in touch.
Locke also said Belinda has received nothing from Richard’s estate, despite its “substantial size” and ability to “meet in absolute terms all just claims against it, unlike the “major provision” received by his five other grandchildren.
Locke told the court that Belinda was suffering from leukemia and had no significant support from any other source.
The woman’s uncle, Nicholas, Richard’s son, opposed the appeal, saying her leukemia was well controlled and her financial position showed she was not in immediate need.
In its ruling, the appeals court said it was understandable that Belinda would initially side with her mother, and that the initial estrangement was not her fault.
But the fact remained that grandfather and grandchild had been estranged from 1996 until his death when she was middle-aged, the decision read.
“She did not show that the estrangement was his choice, he was not aware of any need for maintenance and support on her part, and he had taken care of her mother, who in turn is obliged to take care of Belinda.”
The Supreme Court judge was not wrong when he ruled that Richard had no moral responsibility to care for Belinda separately, the Court of Appeals said.
Belinda told Open Justice she was shocked and devastated by the decision, which had cost her dearly to fight, and there was a chance that she would also have to pay all the costs of the appeal.
“It’s actually very soul-destroying,” she said.
*All names have been changed by the court to protect the identities of the parties.
– Quiyi Tan, Open Justice reporter