Retired Firefighter Sleeping on Ex-Wife’s Floor Loses Inheritance Battle

A retired firefighter who claimed he was homeless and sleeping on a mattress in his former wife’s home has lost his legal bid for a portion of his late father’s $1.3 million estate. A judge dismissed his request for $50,000 in rental assistance as a “contrivance” and rejected claims that he was genuinely destitute.

John Freeman, 76, brought the case against his 63-year-old brother, Mark Freeman, in the NSW Supreme Court after their father, Kenneth Freeman, died in May 2024 aged 98. John had been excluded from the will.

John argued that his father had been mistaken in describing him as having “established himself in life” and being in a reasonably comfortable financial position.

He told the court he was homeless, without sufficient money and dealing with health difficulties. John maintained that his father would have made provision for him if he had understood the full extent of his financial circumstances.

Justice David Hammerschlag delivered a scathing assessment, describing John as an “unimpressive, unpersuasive and unconvincing witness”.

The judge pointed to John’s record of travelling to Thailand at least four times during the previous two years, despite his claims that he was living in poverty.

John paid only $50 a week in rent while in Thailand, owned a car and spent extended periods there. Those circumstances led the judge to conclude that he could live comfortably on his Age Pension.

Justice Hammerschlag was also unconvinced that John had any genuine plan to make Australia his permanent home.

The failed inheritance claim also left John facing legal costs of approximately $171,000—almost twice the $50,000 he had sought.

“With monotonous regularity, the Court must deal with family provision claims where any positive result the claimant might achieve is dwarfed by the claimant’s legal costs,” Justice Hammerschlag said.

“And there is an expectation that legal costs, or a material portion of them, will be paid out of the estate because the claimant cannot afford them.”

The estate was worth “a little over $1.3 million”, with most of its value tied up in the family home in Revesby, Sydney.

Kenneth left everything to Mark, who receives a disability pension, had lived in the family property all his life and had spent years caring for both of his parents.

In a statement attached to his will, Kenneth said Mark had “devoted himself to looking after his parents” and had given up opportunities to accumulate wealth.

“I am concerned that after my death he will not have a place to live and it is therefore my firm intention that I wish my whole estate to go to the benefit of my son Mark. I have given very careful thought to this question before making my decision,” he wrote.

“I feel that my other children Carol, Kenneth John and Robyn have all established themselves in life and to varying degrees are in a reasonably comfortable financial position.”

The court found Mark had devoted years to caring for both parents, while John made no meaningful contribution to his father’s welfare.

Justice Hammerschlag went further, finding there was evidence that John had ‘taken advantage’ of his father. 

The judge also rejected John’s claim that they shared a particularly close relationship, finding he had painted a ‘rosy picture’ and ‘seldom visited’ despite regularly travelling between Australia and Thailand.

‘Nevertheless, John maintains that his relationship with the Deceased continued to be happy, healthy, loving and close. The few smiling photographs on special occasions tendered by John do not prove this,’ the judge said.

The court heard that John wanted $50,000 of the payout to fund rental accommodation in Warrnambool so he could live near one of his sons.

Justice Hammerschlag described the proposal as a ‘contrivance’ and said the $50,000 figure had been ‘plainly plucked out of the air’, adding that advancing the claim on that basis ‘is, or borders on, unethical’.

The judge further noted it would fund only about two years’ rent despite being advanced as a solution to John’s housing needs for the rest of his life.

‘I am unpersuaded that John has any genuine intention of living permanently in Australia… To the extent that he says he does, I disbelieve him,’ he said.

CHECK THIS OUT: Hero Israeli woman Inbar Liberman saves whole village as she leads squad to kill 25 Hamas terrorists in bloody firefight – NewsFinale

The judge found John had effectively lived in Thailand since 2014, where living costs were significantly lower.

Despite claiming to have little money, he travelled there several times after his father’s death, including a nearly two-month trip in 2026 to honour the memory of his late partner, Toi.

Mark’s lawyers argued that any inheritance could simply be used to fund further time in Thailand. The judge said there was ‘force’ in that argument.

John also claimed he suffered glaucoma, cataracts, high blood pressure and spinal problems and needed money for medical expenses.

However, Justice Hammerschlag found there was limited medical evidence supporting several of his claims, including his assertion he still required a catheter.

The court was shown a text message sent by John in December 2023 in which he said he was ‘getting better’ after taking antibiotics and was ‘peeing ok again’, adding that an E. coli infection had blocked his urethra and prostate.

By contrast, Mark suffers from a lengthy list of documented health conditions including severe asthma, depression, anxiety, bladder and prostate disease, diverticulitis and osteoporosis with spinal fractures. A medical certificate from his GP confirmed those conditions.

The court also heard John had cashed in his firefighter superannuation in the 1980s and later sold his home after accumulating tax debts, but gave little detail about how he had come to be in financial difficulty.

John divorced his first wife, Stephenie, in 2001 after he was unfaithful, a deeply personal chapter of his life that has now become part of the public record because of his decision to contest his father’s will.

Despite the split, the pair remained on good terms and she was housing him at the time of the case, with John telling the court he was sleeping on a mattress on the floor at her home and paying board.

The judge also accepted Mark’s evidence that their father was never invited to John’s second wedding and found there was little evidence he had ever met John’s second wife, Kris, or many of his grandchildren.

Earlier in the judgment, Justice Hammerschlag noted the case followed a familiar pattern in inheritance disputes but found Mark’s evidence should be accepted over his brother’s.

Remarkably, while describing his relationship with his parents as close, John incorrectly stated in his first affidavit that his mother had died in about 2006 when she had actually died in 2010. 

‘He got that wrong. It was 2010. Perhaps this reveals something of the nature of his relationship with his parents,’ the judge observed.

Mark alleged that during one visit to Sydney, John asked their father if he could stay for a few days but ended up remaining much longer while contributing nothing towards household expenses.

John disputed the account, but the judge accepted Mark’s version of events, finding it was supported by text messages exchanged between the brothers.

The court also heard John’s claims of falling into financial hardship in 2014 when he was forced to sell his home to pay tax debts and costs associated with his divorce.

However, the judge noted that he provided little detail about how he accumulated the debts, what became of the proceeds from the sale of his home, or how he came to be left with virtually nothing.

Justice Hammerschlag also said that if Kenneth had been mistaken about his son’s financial position when making the will, ‘that was John’s own doing’ 

He ultimately ruled that Kenneth’s wishes should stand, finding he had deliberately chosen to leave his estate to Mark, the son who had cared for him for decades and had the strongest claim on his bounty.

The estate also included a 2000 Toyota Camry, shares and some cash used to help administer the estate and pay funeral expenses.

The judge also rejected John’s claim that his late mother had amassed hundreds of valuable antiques and collectables, finding the items had little commercial value.

Photographs produced by Mark showed little more than a Royal Doulton plate, a handful of metal boxes and a vanity box.

‘Hundreds is a big number,’ Justice Hammerschlag observed.

To fund the $90,000 payment he was seeking, John proposed that Mark take out a reverse mortgage against the family’s Revesby home.

But the judge rejected the proposal, finding no provision should be made for John and ruling against an outcome that would erode the inheritance their father had deliberately left to the son who spent years caring for him.

John’s claim was dismissed and he was provisionally ordered to pay his brother’s legal costs.