Father’s Final Revenge Backfires After Daughter Inherits Just $100

A Queensland father’s attempt to leave his eldest daughter just $100 in his will has failed after a Supreme Court judge ruled that key provisions in his rambling handwritten document were legally invalid. As a result, Tina Gilbert will inherit part of her late father’s estate after all.

Neville Cecil Huxley died in 2021 at the age of 80. In a homemade “kit will”, he divided much of his estate among nine of his 11 surviving children but specifically excluded Ms Gilbert, claiming she had “disowned” him in 1989.

The dispute over the will has continued for years. During the proceedings, a judge warned that legal costs could consume the “vast majority” of the relatively modest $428,000 estate before the family receives its inheritance.

In the handwritten will, signed in 2013, Mr Huxley instructed that the money left in his bank accounts be divided among nine of his children. He added: “It is my intention to specifically exclude my daughter Tina Gilbert from the aforementioned gift because I have made a specific gift for her in this will with an explanation as to why.”

In another section, he wrote that “my daughter tina gilbert (sic) is to be given $100 because she had disowned me in 1989 for unknown reasons or explanation – my only gift to her”.

The will also sought to keep a family property near Charters Towers for three of Neville’s sons, who have Fragile X syndrome. The genetic condition can cause intellectual disability and a need for assistance with everyday activities.

“My property is to stay in the family for my sons to live in the family home,” the document stated.

The court was told the three brothers need differing levels of daily support and live in supported accommodation rather than at the property.

Justice Johnstone found that several directions in the homemade will were invalid. He also ruled that the clause concerning the property did not establish a legally enforceable life interest for Neville’s sons.

That part of the estate must therefore be distributed under Queensland’s intestacy laws, which apply when a valid will does not determine how property should be dealt with.

The ruling means Ms Gilbert will receive a share of the estate under the intestacy rules, despite her father’s stated intention that she receive only $100.

The estate was valued at about $428,000. Justice Johnstone warned that unless its administration was completed soon, “the vast majority of the estate will be lost to legal fees”.

“There have already been a number of court hearings in the matter. The costs will already be significant… unless the administration of the estate can be finalised soon, the vast majority of the estate will be lost to legal fees,” he wrote.

The judge said the estate’s administration had been marked by “profound delay” since probate was granted in 2021.

The court heard that Neville’s daughter and co-executor Ellen had been trying to advance the estate’s administration through her solicitor. Her sister and fellow executor, Catherine, had not taken the same steps.

KEEP READING: Daniel Hagari's Departure: Has He Exited the IDF? – NewsFinale

Catherine accepted that delays had occurred but attributed them to her former solicitors. Justice Johnstone said, however, that she had provided no direct evidence to support that explanation.

In an extraordinary aside, the judge revealed a solicitor acting for Catherine told a previous directions hearing that a fixed-fee retainer had been exhausted and that he was ‘sick of it’ – referring to the long-running family dispute. 

The judgment also records that a court form was filed incorrectly stating the judge had granted leave for the law firm to withdraw from the matter.

‘What was stated in that form was false,’ Justice Johnstone wrote.

Despite years of litigation, the judge left Catherine in place as an executor for now, expressing hope his ruling on the disputed will would finally allow the estate to be wound up and distributed.

‘Whilst it may be the case that the first respondent has not received much in the way of helpful assistance from her most recent representation, that does not explain her conduct over the preceding five years since the grant of probate was made,’ he said.

The family feud boiled over when daughter Ellen offered to buy the estate’s land and collection of vehicles and machinery at market value, a proposal opposed by her sisters.

Initially, Jennifer played only a limited role in the proceedings, seeking the appointment of a litigation guardian for three beneficiaries. 

But she later ‘entered the fray’ alongside Catherine, with the judge noting their interests had become aligned in opposition to Ellen’s application.

The disputed property is occupied rent-free by Jennifer, who the court said appeared to perform general caretaking duties and who was appointed as guardian for two of her brothers together with Catherine.

She told the court her brothers Clifford, Neville and Arron regularly visited the property and that Arron – whose name was also sometimes spelled ‘Aaron’ – often stayed overnight during periods of her care.

Neville, who was born in Mount Isa in 1941, was described in a funeral notice as a self-made jack-of-all-trades who worked on prawn trawlers and cattle stations despite being unable to properly read or write.

He later settled near Charters Towers, unsuccessfully ran for mayor in the 1980s and spent much of his later life tinkering with cars and caring for horses.

The estate includes land valued at about $160,000 and a collection of old car bodies, parts and machinery valued at $86,450. The deceased also held more than $180,000 in cash across two bank accounts.

The irony of the case is that despite Mr Huxley’s express wish that his estranged daughter receive only $100, she will now share in part of the estate because of the way his homemade will was drafted.