Monthly Archives: May 2025

Wealthy squatter house lawyer denies forging wills in ‘high-stakes’ battle over $20 million fortune

on by

 

A wealthy lawyer who unsuccessfully sought to claim S over a pair of Sydney homes has emerged at the centre of another bizarre court case involving allegedly “forged” wills in a fight over a multimillion-dollar fortune left by a prominent solicitor.

Yael Abraham, whose unrelated squatter’s rights claim was thrown out of the NSW Supreme Court last month, has been locked in a protracted three-year probate contest with Annie Goldberg, seeking to set aside wills left by Ms Goldberg’s parents in favour of two alternative wills that allegedly appoint Ms Abraham as sole executor of their estates.

Leon Goldberg, a well known criminal solicitor, died in June 2020 aged 91. His former partner, Carol Goldberg, died in January 2014.

Ms Goldberg was their only child. Ms Abraham, herself a retired solicitor now living in Queensland, has no biological relationship to Leon but claims to have been his friend and confidante — a claim denied by Ms Goldberg, who has alleged the two wills are forgeries.

Neither side’s claims have yet been tested at trial.

On Thursday, NSW Supreme Court Justice Michael Slattery rejected a bid by Ms Goldberg to have the case dismissed outright — instead ordering Ms Abraham not to continue her “unacceptably chaotic conduct of the proceedings” she first brought in March 2022, including repeated “highly disruptive” failures to appear for hearings and changes of lawyers.

“The proceedings have not been struck out,” he said.

“But Ms Goldberg’s motion has been adjourned and may be revived depending on Ms Abraham’s further adherence to Court timetables, directions and orders in relation to further conduct of the proceedings.”

Justice Slattery warned “this is a very high-stakes contest”.

“Ms Goldberg alleges that the 2014 and 2015 wills were forged,” he said.

“Ms Abraham says that she believes the wills are genuine and should be admitted to probate. She strongly denies she was involved in any forgery and that if it turns out the wills are forgeries then she says the forgeries must have been engineered by others. The issue is yet to be decided at trial.”

But Justice Slattery noted that in certain cases “where forgery by some person is established, or strongly indicated, after a civil trial, this might lead to the referral of the proceedings to the Attorney-General for consideration of a prosecution” carrying a possible prison sentence of 14 years.

“Such referrals are made from time to time after the outcome of civil trials where forgery is alleged,” he said.

“By drawing attention to this, the Court is not indicating any view that forgery has occurred in this case but merely reminding both parties that civil litigation can be very consequential beyond its central contest.”

Carol and Leon Goldberg left behind a substantial estate that included properties in Vaucluse, the Blue Mountains, Dulwich Hill and Ambarvale, thought to be worth at least $20 million.

In 2022, one of Leon’s properties — a dilapidated and abandoned old shop on a waterfront block on Fitzwilliam Street, Vaucluse — was sold at auction for $17.1 million.

At the time of her death, Carol’s primary asset was her Ambarvale home, valued at $450,000.

In July 2013, she had made a will, constructed from a will kit, that appointed Leon as her executor and gave the whole of her estate to him. Leon’s will of April 2018 in turn appointed his daughter as his executor and sole beneficiary of his estate.

However, Ms Abraham alleges that Carol made another will in late January 2014, shortly before her death.

“Controversially in these proceedings, only a copy of this will is available, not the original,” Justice Slattery noted.

The typewritten 2014 document names Ms Abraham as Carol’s executrix and reads:

“3. I GIVE to my daughter Annie Goldberg of [address] the sum of $80 pw. I say I do not want my daughter to loose (sic) her sickness benefits Given certain allegations she [Ms Goldberg] makes against me I make it clear that I deny totally the false allegations she makes. I say she knows what they are. I further say my daughter is due to receive a large inheritance from her father, Leon Goldberg and has received considerable amounts of money from him.

“4. I GIVE the balance of my estate to my executrix to hold for life for the benefit of her daughter with a disability, CHRISTINE ALYSON FABRIVCATO, also known as ALYSON ABRAHAM and in the event of her death before me, to her surviving children.”

The foot of the 2014 will bears a handwritten signature reading “Carol Goldberg” and an attestation clause recording the names of two witnesses, “Barry Raymond Thom” and “Zoltan Even Chen Nyti”.

The court noted it was unclear how Ms Abraham came by the 2014 will.

“She says that she was not involved in its preparation or execution but that it was delivered to her, by persons unknown, some months after Carol’s death,” Justice Slattery said.

According to Ms Abraham, she informed Leon about the 2014 will but he requested her not to obtain a grant of probate due to Carol’s tenuous mental capacity at the time it was made. “Ms Abraham’s version has Leon accepting her account of how she (Ms Abraham) came by the 2014 will,” Justice Slattery said.

“It might be expected that a lawyer as clever as Leon might have asked many questions about the provenance of the 2014 will. Ms Abraham attempts to explain the origins of the 2014 will on the basis that Carol had met Ms Abraham’s daughter, Alice, and admired what Ms Abraham was doing for her.”

In May 2015, according to Ms Abraham, Leon also made a will appointing her as his executrix. The typewritten document, which at one point misspells his name as “Leong”, reads:

“3. I GIVE the following specific bequests:

“(i) to the United Israel appeal the sum of $50,000,

“(ii) to the NSW Friendship Circle the sum of $50,000,

“(iii) to my brother CHARLES GOLDBERG my share of [the Blue Mountains property],

“(iv) to my executrix YAEL ABRAHAM the sum of $250,000.”

It then gives 50 per cent of the residue of the estate to be held on trust by Ms Abraham for Ms Goldberg, declaring that she “suffers from a mental illness” and is “not capable of managing her own financial affairs”. The attesting witnesses are recorded as “Joseph Saul Ezekiel” and “Zoltan Even Chen Nyti”.

“Ms Abraham’s account was that she had sufficient confidence from both Carol and Leon to be entrusted with the executorship of their wills,” Justice Slattery said. “It will be strongly contested at any final hearing.”

Ms Abraham provided the court with a lengthy 51-page affidavit, and 275 pages of annexures, that details the “extensive relationship she claims she had with Leon and Carol and their daughter”.

She alleges she first met Leon when she was a young child and later again when she was practising as a solicitor in the 1980s, when he and she referred legal work to one another.

“The Court is not presently judging the merits of this case, but the extensive detail Ms Abraham provided indicates that it is a case that would require detailed consideration at trial to evaluate its merits and persuasiveness, or otherwise,” Justice Slattery said.

In challenging probate of the 2018 will, Ms Abraham has sought evidence related to Leon’s mental state in the final years of his life as he began to exhibit signs of dementia.

Leon was moved to a nursing home in Vaucluse in May 2018 where he lived until his death.

Ms Abraham told the court she brought the proceedings for altruistic reasons for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the 2014 and 2015 wills.

“Ms Abraham says she was not involved in the preparation either of Carol’s 2014 will or Leon’s 2015 will,” Justice Slattery said.

“But Ms Abraham has not so far adduced any evidence as to who prepared these wills. Ms Abraham has at various times been asked to bring into Court the originals of Carol’s 2014 will, and Leon’s 2015 will. She has produced neither. She has made available what she claims are photocopies of the original of each will.”

At the agreement of both parties, the photocopy documents were examined by handwriting expert Melanie Holt, who delivered her report in July 2023.

“It concludes that there is moderately strong support for the hypothesis that someone other than Leon wrote the signature on the 2015 will and that the 2015 will contains anomalies throughout that bring its veracity as a whole [into] question,” Justice Slattery said.

“Due to the limited number of available specimen signatures provided for Carol, Ms Holt was unable to reach a conclusion concerning the testator’s signature on the 2014 will but she observed anomalies throughout the 2014 will, which brought its veracity into question.”

The court was scathing of Ms Abraham for her handling of the case to date, but declined to dismiss the proceedings.

Justice Slattery said a number of witnesses Ms Abraham had put forward left “substantial questions of fact to be tried which should ordinarily be allowed to go to final hearing for their final resolution”.

“At such a final hearing the contest about the execution of the wills will involve examination of the competing expert handwriting evidence and the evidence of the attesting witnesses,” he said.

“A vast range of possible factual findings may emerge from the contest about the various alleged suspicious circumstances.”

Ms Goldberg sought to rely on evidence in the recently decided squatter’s rights case “as showing up Ms Abraham as in substance an opportunist, conduct which Ms Goldberg says is replicated in these proceedings”.

“But the Court declines that invitation,” Justice Slattery said. “These applications are decided solely upon the evidence in these proceedings.”

Ms Abraham will be allowed to review the medical evidence produced on subpoena “so that these proceedings can now be accelerated on a tight timetable” towards resolution.

Justice Slattery also ordered Ms Abraham to file an affidavit on her financial position within 14 days to test the “potentially very doubtful assertion” she had made previously that lack of funds was the reason for her “inability to retain solicitors and advance this case” and pay previous costs orders.

“It is appropriate for her to show some such commitment as a condition of allowing these proceedings to go on and to deter her from repetition of the unacceptably chaotic conduct of the proceedings which has occurred in the past,” he said.

The case resumes in June.

Ms Abraham has been contacted for comment.

Australia’s family law changes to affect pets, property and finances

on by

 

Pet and property owners watch out – Australia’s family law is changing how separation disputes will be resolved.

Coming into effect next month, these key changes will affect how our pets, property and financial matters are resolved for former couples.

So what’s changing for our pets?

Separating couples sharing pets should usually make arrangements for what happens to their prized pooches and furballs without going to court.

However, those that cannot agree on arrangements can apply to the family law courts to make orders, with a specific list considered by the system.

This takes into account:

  • any animal abuse, including threatening behaviour as a form of family violence
  • the attachment of each party, or children, to the family pets

However, there are limits and courts cannot make orders for joint ownership or shared possession of pets.

My relationship ended — what happens to our shared property and finances?

Usually, couples splitting ways should strive to make arrangements related to their shared property and finances, sometimes using dispute resolution outside of courts.

But couples struggling to reach an agreement can apply to family law courts to determine a property settlement.

Changes affecting Family Law Act 1975 include:

  • how the courts will determine a property settlement
  • what the courts will consider when determining a property settlement. This includes the economic effect of any family violence, where relevant

This would apply to all separating couples – whether a property settlement has been determined by family law courts or has been negotiated outside of court.

Key areas that courts will consider:

  • identify all property and liabilities (debts) of the parties
  • assess each party’s contributions to the property pool and to the family’s welfare
  • assess each party’s current and future circumstances. The family law courts will consider matters such as each party’s age and state of health and the care and housing needs of any children
  • only make orders that are, in all of the circumstances, just and equitable

Family violence

The Family Law Act defines family violence as “violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family, or causes the family member to be fearful”.

Key amendments include:

  • the economic effect of family violence, where relevant, when making decisions about property and finances after separation.
  • economic or financial abuse may constitute family violence – including if a person has controlled all of the finances or spending.

What’s staying the same?

  • Family law courts cannot sentence someone for engaging in family violence conduct.
    • Prosecutions for family violence offences are made in state and territory criminal courts.
  • Compensation for harm caused by family violence
    • Compensation may be available under a victims of crime compensation scheme or under an order from a state or territory civil court.
  • Family violence orders to protect someone from family violence or altering existing orders made by state or territory courts to protect someone from family violence.
    • Again, orders for protection against family violence are made or amended by state or territory courts.

Duty of financial disclosure — what changes?

Couples separating have a duty to provide all relevant financial information and documents to each other and the court.

From next month, this duty will be governed by the Family Law Act 1975 instead of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.

This applies to all disputes concerning finances and property after a break-up and is treated as an ongoing duty.

If failure to do so, consequences can affect separating couples such as:

  • take noncompliance into account in a property settlement
  • impose sanctions, such as costs orders
  • punish a party for contempt of court with a fine or imprisonment, or
  • defer or dismiss all or part of the proceedings.

What stays the same?

  • Existing financial or property orders remain unchanged and people with existing orders should continue to follow those orders. While the changes will apply to all new and existing proceedings, there is an exception where a final hearing has already begun.
    • The new law applies to all matters (unless a final hearing has begun), even if an application was filed before June 10, 2025.
    • People who are already in court and do not have a lawyer can seek legal advice on how the changes may impact them.
    • Child support is generally dealt with separately to a family law property settlement.

The changes to family law will come into effect from June 10, 2025.

A fact sheet detailing the changes can be found here.

Shared Parenting is Dead! Single Mother’s now the Equal Priority with Children in Family Law reforms

on by

 

In recent years, amendments have been made to Australian family law to place a greater emphasis on the safety of children and their carers, typically the mother. The Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (Cth) repealed the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility and simplified the considerations for a court to consider.

Now, the best interests of the child take precedence over assumptions about equal time or shared responsibility. This change aims to ensure that legal decisions focus primarily on the child’s safety, especially in cases involving family violence. For example, if one parent is accused of family violence, or if there are concerns about the child’s safety with a particular parent, the court can prioritise the child’s safety over maintaining equal time with both parents.

While section 61DA of the Family Law Act (which allowed the presumption to be rebutted in cases of family violence) has been repealed, section 60CC(2)(a) now plays a central role. This provision explicitly requires the court to consider family violence and abuse when determining the child’s best interests. As a result, the safety of both the child and primary carer remains the top priority when making parenting orders.

The amendment reduces the legal obligation for parents to consult with each other when it is unsafe, granting the court more discretion to make decisions that protect both the child and the carer.

This is crucial for promoting safer, more flexible outcomes, particularly in situations involving family violence or other risks to the child’s well-being.

In short, the 2023 Amendment simplifies the legal process, ensuring that decisions are focused on child protection and allowing courts to prioritise safety over assumptions about equal time or shared responsibility. This is a significant step forward in family law, ensuring that the needs of children are always at the forefront of decision-making.

If you’re separating or going through a divorce, it’s important to seek legal advice, especially if children under 18 are involved. Understanding your rights, as well as the rights of your child, is essential. Under Australian family law, children have the right to a meaningful relationship with both parents, but also the right to be protected from harm.

Trying to ‘rule from the grave’? The trouble with testamentary trusts

on by

 

When it comes to divvying up your estate after death, testamentary trusts are often touted as an option. They can be a way to ‘rule from the grave’, giving you more control over the way your assets are distributed – placing them in a trust, rather than having them given directly to your beneficiaries.

However, it’s important to consider that all the power lies with the trustee, not the person you want to provide for. And though the trustee has a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries, that may require a significant level of foresight and wisdom. Let’s look at some of the ways testamentary trusts can go south.

There are many ways to structure a testamentary trust. The trustee could be a friend, relative or professional organisation. The income beneficiary may be your spouse, who may end up without actual ownership of the trust assets, just the earnings.

Remaindermen are the beneficiaries who will receive the assets on the death of the income beneficiary, maybe your children from an earlier marriage. Whatever is not paid to the beneficiary eventually becomes the property of the remaindermen.

 However, in some cases, the trustee may be one of the remaindermen, or might just feel a lot of pressure from the remaindermen to protect their interests, causing the elderly spouse a lot of worry in their old age.

Even defining income is a problem. This should be addressed in the trust deed. If not, then the trust law definition of income applies. Income in accordance with Australian Accounting Standards includes capital gains, trust law income does not.

Taxable income is different again; for example, it includes franking credits and capital gains. Dividend reinvestment may leave the beneficiary with nothing. Regardless of what the beneficiary receives, they will be required to pay tax on all the taxable income of the trust.

Let’s look at a trust with just shares and the like, as it is a much bigger problem if the trust contains the family home.

To avoid income manipulation you might consider giving the trustee the discretion to use capital to provide a comfortable lifestyle for the spouse. However, how do you define a ‘comfortable’ lifestyle?

I have seen the sole income beneficiary of a professionally managed trust receive just $200 per week, and no payments for six months at a time, and yet they are not entitled to the pension because the assets of the trust excluded them under the asset test.

Giving the trustee discretion puts the spouse at their mercy. Furthermore, it can jeopardise their entitlement to franking credits, an important income stream for many retirees. A trust with any discretionary powers is not a fixed trust, so the beneficiary cannot say they have owned the shares that generated the income for more than 45 days.

Accordingly, unless the beneficiary is only entitled to less than $5000 in franking credits they will not be able to use any franking credits to reduce the tax on their distribution.

The spouse can wind up destitute because Centrelink will look at the assets of the trust and the deed and decide that the spouse is the sole income beneficiary so has control, and declare they are not entitled to any pension. A trustee prioritising protecting the purchasing power of the assets will invest for capital growth, leaving the spouse with no pension and very little income.

 You might say this is not right, but the only way of getting more income is to take the trustee to court – apparently common practice, and it quickly erodes the estate via legal fees.
Finally, to avoid this, you might consider using a professional organisation hoping for more equitable management. But the more assets these organisations have under management, the more they earn in fees.

They can sell up all your assets and put them into their managed funds of “prudent investments” that, after fees, return 2 per cent, and then charge fees on top of that for managing your trust.

This is only a small sample of the problems you could be leaving behind. Testamentary trusts are rarely a solution and likely to be very costly to the estate.

Julia Hartman founded BAN TACS Accountants more than 30 years ago and is still passionate about all things tax.

  • Advice given in this article is general in nature and is not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.

Lending your kids money? This could save you from going to court

on by

 

 

Around Australia, many family lawyers are on a delicate mission: helping parents and grandparents navigate how to help loved ones financially while still protecting their assets if there’s a break-up.

It’s becoming an increasingly common query from clients of a certain age, who want to subsidise their child or grandchild but also keep assets in the family if a relationship ends.

It’s a fraught issue as Australia experiences an era of massive intergenerational wealth transfer, with an estimated $3.5 trillion in assets expected to be passed on by 2050.

There are three main options when transferring wealth: a gift (which offers little to no legal protection), a loan (which can be contested, especially if not properly documented) or the most robust legal option, the Binding Financial Agreement (BFA).

 A decade ago, it was unusual to request a BFA for family wealth transfer. Now, many parents won’t extend money to their children unless they and their partner enter into a binding agreement.

What is a BFA?

BFAs are powerful legal tools that can protect financial contributions when you hand over wealth (whether early inheritance, money for a home deposit or other financial support). They allow all parties to define in legal terms how specific assets will be treated in the event of separation.

They are enforceable under the Family Law Act and allow parties to contract out of the usual rules surrounding division of property. This is particularly useful in blended families, second or subsequent marriages, or when significant family wealth is involved.

A BFA must be signed with independent legal advice on both sides, which offers an extra layer of fairness, clarity and enforceability. But they are not without complications. Any situation where a legal document intersects with love, family and money should be approached with careful thought and expert advice.

How could I use a BFA?

Aside from your Westpacs or NABs, the bank of mum and dad or bank of granny and pa are big players in helping young Australians enter the property market.

Such well-meaning gifts or loans can have unintended consequences, especially if a couple receiving this financial support separates and the gift or loan is entangled in a property settlement.

Families often believe they are lending, not gifting, money to their children or grandchildren, but without clear records and legal structure the courts may not agree.

Consider the case of Toby and Mia. Toby’s parents contributed $500,000 towards a first home purchase, intended as a loan. They were not comfortable creating a formal repayment schedule or loan agreement, keeping it as a “family understanding”.

When Toby and Mia’s relationship ended years later, the lack of documentation meant the parental contribution was treated by the courts as a gift and included in the pool of assets available for division between the couple.

This is a common outcome.

Many informal family loans are never recorded or legally structured, and I’ve seen first-hand how disputes over such loans/gifts can cause immense financial and emotional strain and lead to the breakdown of family relationships.

 A well-drafted BFA can clearly define who owns what and ensure that a contribution is not lost in a break-up. It can explicitly exclude certain assets from any future property settlement and is harder (though not impossible) to contest in court.

Are they always the best idea?

With the growing popularity of BFAs, I expect to see more court challenges to them in the future. Unless your BFA is objectively fair and reasonable, it risks being overturned in court, especially if there is evidence of coercion, inadequate disclosure or lack of legal advice.

An overly one-sided BFA is not worth the paper it’s written on. The courts can and do set them aside. In one case, Thorne v Kennedy, the High Court did just that.

There is also a risk of relationship damage if one party feels pressured into signing. With couples, sometimes the implication that one party is protecting themselves “just in case” can lead to resentment and mistrust. This makes honest conversations essential.

The bottom line in working out whether a BFA is right for you is: are you prepared to be sharing that asset with the other party if there is a split?
If you are comfortable with this, or you are concerned about upsetting family dynamics by requesting a BFA, you may prefer to gift. It’s your choice to weigh up how much control you want over that asset as you pass it to the next generation.If you want to keep that asset in the family, a BFA provides solid legal protection, although there are other options.James Steel is a family law specialist and principal at national law firm Barry Nilsson, and a nationally accredited mediator.

  • Advice given in this article is general in nature and not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.