Tuesday, August 30, 2022

Crisp (apples)** and orders

The concept of a 'Crisp order' takes its name from the decision of Crisp v Burns Philp Trustee Company Limited [NSWSC, 18 December 1979, unreported].

In that case, a widow who was granted a mere right of residence in a home under her husband’s will challenged the provision as inadequate.

The court decided to allow the former matrimonial home to be treated as if it were an ‘accommodation fund'. This meant that the widow could use the entire value of the home to help meet her accommodation needs for the balance of her life.

In other words, on request, the executor of the estate was required to use the capital value to purchase alternative accommodation for the widow, such as a smaller house, entry into a retirement village or a nursing home.

Ultimately, Crisp orders are intended to provide a form of flexible life interest to a surviving spouse to ensure that they have access to appropriate accommodation until their death.

Any capital remaining following the death of the surviving spouse will then generally pass as originally anticipated under the will of the person whose estate was originally challenged.

The post next week will list out some of the key factors normally taken into account by a court before granting a Crisp order.

As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.

** For the trainspotters, the title of today's post is riffed from the classic song ‘My favourite things'.

Check out the Julie Andrews version here: