What are the opening hours?

Monday 8:30am - 5pm Tuesday 8:30am - 5pm Wednesday 8:30am - 5pm Thursday 8:30am - 5pm Friday 8:30am - 5pm

TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing

Home
Australia
Coffs Harbour, NSW
TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing

Coffs Harbour's longest standing law firm; serving our community for over 80 years. We also understand the anxiety that can be associated with legal matters.

Ticli Blaxland Lawyers has a tradition of excellence and success in the provision of legal services to the local area since 1940. We are committed to providing a down-to-earth, compassionate approach to problems whilst giving clear and objective advice in a wide range of areas including Wills and Deceased Estates, Conveyancing and Property Law, Business Sales, Leasing and Commercial Law. We provid

e cost-effective, practical legal services in an efficient and timely manner. Contact us to arrange a consultation with one of our experienced solicitors.

20/08/2026

Weddings, a funeral and a probate problem

Beatrice passes away, appointing her children Prudence, Bernie and Rupert as joint executors and equal beneficiaries. She said they balanced each other out. In practice, they did this by disagreeing in equal proportions.

The estate’s main asset was Cupid’s Castle, a wedding venue with a heart shaped lake, gazebo and nine peacocks with a reputation for interrupting vows and pursuing photographers.

Prudence and Bernie wanted to sell. Rupert insisted a wedding season would increase value. Without consulting them, Rupert accepted bookings eighteen months ahead, bought 200 gold chair covers and advertised a “Peacock Premium Package”. The package promised a peacock procession. The peacocks promised nothing.

Prudence appointed an agent. Rupert cancelled the inspection because it clashed with a rehearsal. At the rescheduled inspection, the peacocks chased the agent into the heart shaped lake. Rupert blamed the agent for overreacting, dismissed him and appointed a replacement. Prudence refused to instruct the replacement agent and Cupid’s Castle remained no closer to being sold.

The siblings agreed to accept no further bookings and Rupert honoured that agreement until the next enquiry arrived. Considering it poor business practice to turn away a deposit, he continued accepting bookings from anyone who enquired, attended a wedding or exchanged romantic looks across the gazebo.

Rupert began converting the shed into a honeymoon suite. Prudence told the builder to stop. Rupert told him to continue. Bernie demanded quotes. The builder stopped answering any of them.

Prudence changed the locks. Rupert changed them back. Bernie refused to reimburse the locksmith.

They argued over sale price, chairs and whether the peacocks were assets, employees or Rupert’s responsibility.

Prudence and Bernie applied to revoke the grant of probate.

With Rupert and the chair-cover supplier being the only functioning partnership, the Court found administration had stalled, revoked the grant and appointed an independent administrator to sell Cupid’s Castle.

The peacocks remained uncooperative under new management.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

13/08/2026

Don’t Let Your Super Fund Decide

Sam has diligently contributed to his superannuation fund over the years and it is now his biggest asset.

Sam executes a non-lapsing binding death benefit nomination, directing who shall receive his superannuation upon his death. He nominates his wife, Wendy as the recipient of 80% of his "death benefit", which includes a life insurance component. He nominates his two nephews to each receive 10% of the remaining balance.

Sam's superannuation fund, requires the death benefit nomination to be renewed every three years, otherwise it "lapses". The superannuation fund does not remind Sam to attend to this but he is aware of this requirement and ensures that the nomination is renewed accordingly.

When Sam passes away, his superannuation fund advises that his nomination is not valid because his nephews are not "dependents". Under superannuation law, nominations can only be made in favour of defendants who include spouses, children, other dependent persons, or your estate. Children who are not financially dependent can nonetheless be validly nominated.

Due to Sam's error, the superannuation fund holds a discretion to deal with Sam superannuation.

It comes to light that Sam had an estranged son from a brief relationship when Sam was in his 20s. The superannuation fund has difficulty finding this child and the process of distributing Sam's superannuation encounters severe delays.

If Sam had nominated his estate to receive his superannuation, his will could have given effect to a distribution of the death benefit to his nephews.

Ultimately, the superannuation fund decides to pay 20% of Sam's substantial superannuation fund to his estranged son. Wendy unsuccessfully challenges the decision, leading to further delays.

A recent survey found that most super fund members stated that they had not been contacted by their fund in relation to the making of a death benefit nomination and 87% of people did not report as having a nomination in place.

Unfortunately, the result is that many grieving widows are waiting too long for superannuation payouts and in some cases, payments are made against the member's wishes.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

06/08/2026

The Art of Deception?

Carmen was barely five feet tall, broad in the shoulders and gloriously stubborn. She believed olive oil cured most ailments, garlic improved every meal and if an expert disagreed with her, the expert probably needed a second opinion.

She trusted her judgment. That included art. While others bought paintings to match the furniture, Carmen bought them because they deserved to be noticed. If the painting came home, the furniture could adjust. The family just assumed she had unusual taste. Years later, they discovered she had exceptional judgment.

Following her husband's illness, Carmen sold their modest home to fund his residential aged care. After his death, she moved into a rented cottage, insisting she no longer needed a house, only enough space for her paintings.

She adored her daughter, Lucille, who shared her appreciation for art. Carmen rarely left a gallery empty-handed and Lucille often joked the only spare wall was the front door.

For fifteen years, Carmen had no relationship with her eldest daughter, Gabriela.

As Carmen's health declined, she transferred her art collection to Lucille, explaining she wanted it to remain with someone who appreciated it.

When Carmen died at 87, she appointed Lucille executor and sole beneficiary in her Will.

On paper, there seemed little point in disputing the estate. It was worth about $280,000.

However, Gabriela commenced family provision proceedings, arguing the transferred art collection should be treated as "notional estate" and "clawed-back".

During the proceedings, a professional valuation revealed the collection was worth $320,000, with several paintings having been purchased from artists before they became well-established names in Australian art.

The Court designated part of the collection as notional estate and awarded Gabriela modest provision from its value. In determining appropriate provision, the Court considered Gabriela's circumstances, Lucille's years of caring for Carmen and Carmen's reasons for transferring the collection during her lifetime.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

31/07/2026

Putting together the Aged Care puzzle
Harry, aged 85, is finding that he needs a walking frame to move around his house. His house requires various renovations, such as a ramp and grab handles in the bathroom if he is to stay there. He cannot afford the renovations.

Harry decides to move in with his daughter. He intends to give his daughter the proceeds of the sale of his home, in return for him living with her.

Harry’s daughter has a mortgage, which Harry intends to discharge. He only has a small amount of savings and is reliant on a Centrelink pension to meet his day-to-day expenses.

Harry sees a solicitor and seeks advice.

Harry is advised that in order to keep his pension entitlements, a granny flat agreement should be considered. Legally, a granny flat interest is an agreement for accommodation for life and is not necessarily a description which applies to a particular type of dwelling.

In addition, he is advised that if Services Australia determines that Harry has paid too much for his granny flat interest, he may be deemed to have deprived himself of an asset by way of a gift and could lose his pension for up to 5 years.

The solicitor advises Harry that, particularly in light of her existing mortgage, if things don’t work out with his daughter, he may have difficulty relocating comfortably.

Harry is advised to consider other options, such as home assistance or downsizing. He is also advised of the possibility of obtaining a reverse mortgage, whether this is through a private lender or through the Home Equity Access Scheme, administered through Services Australia.

In terms of downsizing, Harry is advised to consider obtaining accommodation in a retirement village or a manufactured home park. These options will allow Harry to maintain his financial independence in terms of security of tenure and mitigate the risks of difficulties in realising the return of funds advanced to his daughter.

The solicitor recommends that Harry obtains financial advice in relation to the Services Australia requirements before proceeding, and invites his instructions to draft a compliant granny flat agreement, should he wish to proceed in that direction.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

23/07/2026

Cocktails, cruises and codicils

Jean had spent decades building a life of considerable means with her husband, Werner. Following his death, she updated her Will, leaving the bulk of her substantial estate to family members and several charities.

Then Jean boarded a cruise.

Between tropical sunsets, poolside cocktails and leisurely afternoons at sea, Jean met Sterling, an American entertainment lawyer whose colourful observations about Hollywood, high profile litigation and the entertainment industry drew crowds almost as reliably as the breakfast buffet. He possessed the effortless confidence of a man who had spent a lifetime talking his way into the best rooms and out of the worst situations.

What began as a holiday romance soon swept Jean off her feet. Before long, the pair were dividing their time between Australia, the United States and overseas holidays.

As the years passed, Jean's Wills also changed.

Sterling's daughter was left $200,000. Sterling then received a $1 million legacy. A later Will entitled Sterling to receive income from Jean's testamentary trust. Finally, he was granted a lifelong right to live in Jean's waterfront home.

To most observers, Sterling was the life of the party, but Jean's brother, Lionel, wasn't so easily charmed. After Jean's death, he discovered that every new Will seemed just a little more fond of Sterling than the one before.

Lionel pointed to Jean's long history of heavy alcohol use, repeated falls and declining health. He also questioned Sterling’s involvement in the preparation of the later Wills.

By the time Jean passed away, three different Wills were competing for recognition.

The Court considered extensive medical records, legal file notes and witness evidence before concluding that Jean had testamentary capacity when she made her 2024 Will, but not when she executed her final Will in 2025. The Court admitted the 2024 Will to probate and rejected allegations that Sterling had exercised undue influence over Jean.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

17/07/2026

Financial manager challenged on criminal history

Penny is diagnosed with dementia and is found to have a cognitive impairment.

The Guardianship Division of NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) appoints Penny’s nephew, Robert, as her financial manager.

NCAT’s decision is appealed by Penny’s great nephew, Alan, who states that the Tribunal did not properly consider Robert’s criminal history, which includes convictions for several serious offences.

The Appeal Panel states that it is required to afford the following Guidelines “great weight” when called upon to make a decision regarding the appointment of a financial manager.

The protection and welfare of the “protected person” is paramount.

The appointment of a financial manager must be made in the best interests of the protected person.

It is preferable for the appointment to be made after consultation with the protected person and their family and carers to identify the particular circumstances.

The welfare and interests of the protected person may favour the appointment of a family member, rather that the NSW Trustee.

The prudent administration of a protected person’s estate should occur in the simplest and least expensive way.

The appropriate manager depends on the value and nature of the protected person’s property and the manager should develop a plan for the management of the estate.

The manager should not have a “conflict of interest” and should generally perform the role gratuitously.

The Tribunal notes that in relation to Robert’s criminal history, no convictions related to “financial dishonesty, exploitation or deception” and that a money laundering charge resulted from the “sole desire to access the proceeds of drug dealing”.

It is further noted that Robert had not been charged nor convicted of any criminal offence for more than ten years and since his release from imprisonment had ceased reoffending and further, Robert had been forthcoming in disclosing the nature of his criminal history to the Tribunal.

The Appeal Panel ultimately confirms Robert’s appointment as financial manager and dismissed the appeal.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

10/07/2026

Equal isn't always fair: ‘A’ Minor dispute

Hans dies at 82, leaving behind his wife of 22 years, Greta, his daughter from a previous marriage, Anna, and a Will that, at first glance, seemed perfectly sensible.

Hans appointed Greta and Anna as executors and, aside from a gift to a local charity, directed the family home and the balance of his estate be sold, with the proceeds divided equally between them.

The house was also home to Hans’ pride and joy, a century-old grand piano occupying almost half the living room. According to Hans, it had survived two world wars, two moves, and one enthusiastic removalist armed with a crowbar. One thing was beyond dispute; nobody was moving the piano. Not in theory, not in practice, not under any interpretation of the Will.

For Greta, complying with the Will meant more than selling a house. She had lived in the property for over a decade and expected to remain there. Now 73 and retired, she faced leaving the property she had been in for more than fifteen years. “Half the estate” sounded generous on paper, but provided limited security in a property market where suitable replacement housing was increasingly difficult to secure.

Anna understood her father’s wishes but recognised Greta’s predicament. An equal division of the estate would give Greta half its value, but not the security of a roof over her head.

Greta commenced proceedings seeking further provision from Hans’ estate.

Before the hearing, the parties agreed Greta would receive a 75% interest in the home together with a ten-year right to reside, and Anna the remaining 25% interest and balance of the estate.

The Court approved the compromise, allowing Greta to remain in the home for the next ten years.

As a result, the family never discovered whether Hans’ century-old grand piano could have survived another move, or whether the removalist ever actually needed the crowbar.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

08/07/2026

Blast from the past

Daniel passes away unexpectedly, leaving no will.

Daniel’s mother, Amanda consults a solicitor regarding the administration of the estate.

Amanda tells the solicitor that Daniel was never married, did not leave a de facto partner and had no children.

The solicitor advises Amanda, that in the circumstances, she is entitled to the whole of Daniel’s estate. consisting of a home worth $500,000.

With the assistance of the solicitor, Amanda sells Daniel’s home and uses the proceeds of sale, together with some of her savings to purchase a new home in her name. She moves into the home with her husband.

Ten years later, Amanda receives a message via Facebook from a young man named James. He informs her that she may be his grandmother.

James discovers that Daniel has passed away and asks Amanda about his father’s estate.

James obtains legal advice and a paternity test is conducted. The paternity test concludes that James is Daniel’s biological child.

James commences action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, naming Amanda as the defendant, seeking orders that she compensate him on the basis that he is entitled to the whole of his father’s estate, based on “the rules of intestacy”.

At the hearing, Amanda reveals that she had been aware before Daniel’s death, that James was in fact his son.

Under cross-examination, Amanda states that James should not be entitled to his inheritance, because “family should not sue each other”.

The Court concludes that Amanda should have instructed her solicitor, that James was Daniel’s son and on the basis of a “misappropriation of trust property” orders that James is entitled to the whole of Daniel’s estate.

Despite resistance from Amanda, the Court further orders that James can “trace” the proceeds of his father’s estate, which were used to primarily fund the acquisition of Amanda’s home and on this basis, he is entitled to an interest in her property calculated at 82.3%.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

25/06/2026

You goat to be kidding me…

Brigid O'Sullivan passes away at 78, leaving behind a carefully drafted Will and a cottage-sized problem.

For years, Brigid's nephew, Declan, lived alone in a stone cottage that had once belonged to Brigid's sister, Margaret. Under Margaret's Will, Declan was entitled to live there for life, with the balance of the estate to pass to Brigid and Brigid’s husband, Seamus, upon Declan’s death.

Declan was known throughout the district for two things: his refusal to throw anything away and a one-eyed goat named Patrick, whom he claimed could predict rain better than the Bureau of Meteorology.

When Brigid later made her own Will, she left to her late husband's sister, Niamh:

"whatever rights I may have in relation to any real property."

The remainder of her estate was divided among family members.

Seamus died first. Years later, Brigid also passed away.

Just six days after Brigid's death, Declan also died, leaving no children and no Will.

At Declan’s wake, relatives reminisced about family holidays, old arguments and somewhat unexpectedly, who should inherit Patrick the goat.

With Declan gone, the cottage became available for distribution. By then, the value of the cottage had boomed following rumours of a major renewable energy company acquiring surrounding farmland.

Niamh claimed the cottage formed part of the gift made to her under Brigid's Will.

The residuary beneficiaries disagreed. They argued that Brigid never owned the cottage and had no right to possess it when she died. At most, she held a future entitlement under Margaret's estate.

What began as a family debate about an eccentric goat soon became a dispute over whether a future right to inherit land can pass under a gift of rights relating to real property.

Meanwhile, Patrick the goat remains blissfully unaware that the cottage had inherited his position as the family's most divisive asset.

Thank you to Ellysha Laklem for her assistance with this column.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

18/06/2026

Flexibility important to planning

Larry has a child to his first marriage, Ken. Larry is now remarried to his second wife, Michelle.

Larry makes a will appointing Ken and Michelle as his executors. He leaves his investment property to Ken and grants Michelle the right to reside in his home, in which they both live, for life. Ken then stands to receive Larry’s home when Michelle ceases to reside in the property. The rest of his estate is split equally between Ken and Michelle.

When Larry dies at the age of 80, he has been married to Michelle for 40 years. Each of his properties are worth $1 million and he has $100,000 in savings.

Michelle is 75 years of age when Larry passes-away. Michelle has an investment property worth $1 million and savings of $200,000.

Michelle is concerned that in the near future, she will need to move out of Larry’s home and into more suitable accommodation, such as a retirement village. She is worried that Larry’s will gives his home to Ken when she vacates the property. She is also worried that after she pays for a unit in a retirement village, she will have insufficient funds to provide herself with a comfortable retirement.

Michelle seeks legal advice and decides to challenge Larry’s will.

Michelle and Ken are unable to reach a compromise amongst themselves and the matter proceeds to a hearing in the Supreme Court.

The Court ultimately grants Michelle a “flexible” life interest which allows her to sell Larry’s house and use the proceeds to acquire accommodation elsewhere and only upon her death, does Ken receive the proceeds. Michelle also receives an additional $45,000 to fund repairs to Larry’s house if they are required.

Proper estate planning, incorporating a flexible life interest in Larry’s will, could have prevented Ken and Michelle each incurring legal costs of $100,000.

If you have a request for a Hypothetical, call Manny Wood on (02) 66 487 487 or email [email protected].

This fictional column is not legal advice.

Address

45 Grafton Street
Coffs Harbour, NSW
2450

Opening Hours

Monday	8:30am - 5pm
Tuesday	8:30am - 5pm
Wednesday	8:30am - 5pm
Thursday	8:30am - 5pm
Friday	8:30am - 5pm

Telephone

+61266487487

Website

https://tblaw.au/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to TB Law - Ticli Blaxland Lawyers & Conveyancing:

Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice in Coffs Harbour?