A will is a document that records your intentions of how your assets will be distributed when you die. A will is invalid if the will maker does not understand its contents. The will is also invalid if you are unduly influenced by others. In a recent case, Raymond was diagnosed with cancer in 2015 and died in 2017. He never married and did not have any children. Raymond made three wills:
- May 2016 that left the entire estate to the Salvation Army;
- June 2017, that left 65% of the estate to his doctor, Dr Alexakis. The remaining 35% was left to friends.
- July 2017 that left 90% of the estate to Dr Alexakis and the remaining 10% was to friends.
In 2023, the Salvation Army and Raymond’s friends sued Dr Alexakis. They argued Raymond did not understand nor approve of the will. They also claimed Raymond was influenced by Dr Alexakis or the doctor had committed fraud. Dr Alexakis sought an order from the Court that the third will was valid.
The Salvation Army wanted the Court to declare that the first will was valid. The Salvation Army believed Raymond did not understand nor approve the second and third wills. They argued Raymond was influenced by Dr Alexakis to sign the third will. The friends claimed the second will was valid.
Dr Alexakis introduced his own solicitor to Raymond and that solicitor drafted the second and third wills. The Salvation Army and the friends criticized the solicitor for accepting Raymond’s instructions to leave most of his estate to Dr Alexakis. They argued that the solicitor did not ask Raymond questions that tested if he knew or understood the effect of his will. They said that Dr Alexakis coerced Raymond and acted unconscionably by taking advantage of the doctor-patient relationship.
During questioning, it was revealed that Dr Alexakis and Raymond had an arrangement where Raymond would make a provision in his will for Dr Alexakis. In exchange, Dr Alexakis would release Raymond from hospital and take care of him at his home. Raymond also gifted Dr Alexakis $10,000. The Court noted that whilst Dr Alexakis’s conduct and arrangement may be questionable, it was not unconscionable.
The Court declared that the third will was valid because Raymond understood and approved the provisions. The Court found that Dr Alexakis did not influence Raymond because he wanted to leave hospital and receive care from home. The judge ordered that Dr Alexakis was entitled to receive his provision under the will.
Dr Alexakis’s actions in this case were reported to the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. He was found guilty of professional misconduct and his future is uncertain. This case has been appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal and is yet to be decided.
