The sister of the late Aussie surf photographer Martin Tullemans has lost her bid for his fortune, bringing to an end a years-long legal battle that centred on a will which was marked “powderkeg” – and referred to one of its beneficiaries as an “a**ehole”.
Tullemans, whose surfing images appeared in magazines in Australia and the US for more than four decades, died in December 2020, kicking off a dramatic legal saga.
His sister, Maria Bernadina Shaw, applied to Brisbane’s Supreme Court for a probate based on a purported 2019 will she found in an envelope marked “powderkeg” while cleaning out Tullemans’ cabin in 2020 when he was in hospital.
The will left most of Tullemans’ estate to Ms Shaw, which she claimed included about $380,000 in cash and $246,000 interest in the estate of their late father, Petrus.
But Tullemans’ daughter-in-law Tamar Tane challenged the will’s validity and instead sought probate on a 2013 will that bequeathed his entire estate to Ms Tane and her three siblings.
The validity of the 2013 will when made was not in dispute. The court only had to decide whether it was superseded by the 2019 will.
Furious letter locked in safe
Ms Shaw claimed she had found the 2019 will, along with a furious letter, locked in a safe and wrapped in an envelope marked, “Powderkeg”.
Made with a ‘Prepare Your Own Will’ pack, it was written almost entirely by Ms Shaw’s son David, and signed by her late father Petrus and one of Tullemans’ neighbours.
“This is to be read only if the will is contested,” a letter with it read.
“I have written this as it is the right thing to do, it is completely of my own free will, I am good (I drive to Brisbane, I sell photos/slides, etc, I plan on my calender etc.) [sic] My father’s money might be part of this will, so it is important that I make my intentions clear.”
It painted a glowing picture of Ms Shaw, and a fairly dull picture of her “a**ehole” brother, Frank.
“Frank has a history of plotting and scheming. He extorts every cent he can from situations,” it said. “$50,000 is far more than he ever deserves as he doesn’t need the money at all; and he is an ‘a**ehole’.
“Mary my sister is a nurse, and she supported my father at her home … Mary deserves help and she has two children that would benefit greatly.
“I definately [sic] do not want 1 cent to go to the courts. Please take heed!”
Ms Shaw’s son claimed that he wrote the will at the instruction of Tullemans, who told him to keep it a secret – including from Ms Shaw herself – until after he died.
The 2013 will, however, was more straightforward.
It appointed Tullemans’ daughter-in-law Ms Tane as executor and bequeathed the entire estate to her and her three siblings in equal shares.
‘An atmosphere of suspicion’
In a decision delivered on Friday, Justice David Jackson said there were numerous circumstances surrounding the 2019 will that were suspicious.
These included the fact it was discovered by Ms Shaw, who was also the main beneficiary – and was written almost entirely by her son.
It was a substantial departure from the 2013 will, and Tullemans had no apparent knowledge of it in a 2020 meeting with his solicitor, and there was no evidence of him discussing it with anyone after it was made.
Mr Jackson said there also remained significant unanswered questions as to the signatures and initials on the 2019 will.
Curiously, the neighbour whose signature appears on the will said she wasn’t present when it was written, and signed without reading it.
More Coverage
She did not realise she had signed a will, the court heard. She also denied signing the letter of wishes.
“Those circumstances together invoke a well-founded atmosphere of suspicion, which Mary [Maria Shaw] has not satisfactorily removed,” Justice Jackson said.
He pronounced in favour of the 2013 will.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7r7HWrGWcp51jrrZ7y6Kdnqukrrmme9GemKVlnJ6zpnvNnq6sZZyes6Z7y56emqRdl661wMueZKiulad6pr%2FTmqueZZ%2BbeqLB0qygnmWjqr%2Bnecuenp6mlGKzqrrApaOyZaKawLC41Z6baKaVrMBuv9OoqbJnZZh9eYDCnJ2bnmOXsHKulGxtbG9nbYOnfMSanGpqkZY%3D