A bitter family feud involving eight Sydney homes has erupted in court after a father left his entire multimillion-dollar estate to one daughter, cutting the other out completely. At the centre of the Supreme Court battle is a will signed in June 2012, in which Italian migrant Alessio Puopolo handed over all his assets to his younger daughter, Josephine Puopolo Passas.
The move overturned an earlier 2003 will that split the estate equally between Josephine and her older sister, Maria D'Apice. Maria, 69, launched a legal challenge, arguing the 2012 will was created in 'suspicious circumstances' and should be scrapped. However, the court heard there was no suggestion Mr Puopolo lacked mental capacity when he signed it, with evidence, including from Maria, that he was 'sharp as a tack until close to the end'. Justice Bennett also accepted Josephine was not involved in preparing or executing the will.
The Dispute
Mr Puopolo died from stomach cancer in October 2022. Probate was granted in July 2023, installing Josephine as executor, but the will quickly became the centre of a bitter courtroom fight. 'It is clear both of them loved their father very much,' Justice Hayley Bennett said, noting the daughters' grief that surfaced during emotional evidence.
The dispute involves a multimillion-dollar property portfolio built over decades by Mr Puopolo and his wife, Domenica, after they migrated to Australia in 1960. Homes bought for tens of thousands in the 1970s and 1980s, including in the south Sydney suburbs of Oatley and Carlton, are now worth up to $3.5 million each.
Key Issues
A key issue was whether Mr Puopolo had already 'balanced the ledger' between his daughters during his lifetime, effectively ensuring they received similar financial benefits before his death. Maria argued he had always intended to treat both daughters equally. The court found that, when all financial support was considered, both women had been treated broadly comparably. At a 'macro level', Justice Bennett said each daughter effectively ended up with four properties even if the present-day values differed.
A decisive factor was the care Josephine provided her parents over many years. After their mother Domenica was diagnosed with dementia in 2009, Josephine regularly cooked, cleaned, attended medical appointments and eventually moved into the family home to care for both parents. Domenica died in 2014. Maria conceded under cross-examination she 'didn't do as much as [her] sister', citing work and family commitments. Justice Bennett said it was clear Josephine had done 'significantly more', while family friends gave evidence that Mr Puopolo had expressed disappointment over Maria not visiting enough in later years.
Father's Own Words
Crucially, Mr Puopolo had documented his reasoning in a 2014 statutory declaration explaining why he intended to favour Josephine. While a draft version included sharp criticism of Maria's handling of property matters, later removed for being too inflammatory, his final declaration was clear. 'I have made the provision to Josephine to compensate her for the loss to her as a result of Maria failing to abide by my directions to her concerning the division of certain properties,' the draft statutory declaration read. 'This includes the failure by Maria to transfer to Josephine one of the apartments with the company trust, and the failure of Maria to compensate Josephine with respect to the capital gains taxation (about $15,000) paid by Josephine upon transfer of a property to Maria.'
Mr Puopolo said he had already provided Maria with 'substantial financial assistance', including funding multiple properties. 'I have made the additional provision for Josephine in recognition that I have provided my daughter Maria with substantial financial assistance during my lifetime, including the money for the purchase of 3 houses and 2 apartments, as well as the deposit for the first property she purchased with her husband about 40 years ago,' he wrote. Court documents showed Maria and her husband jointly own four properties worth more than $7.3 million, with total assets exceeding $13.8 million.
Judgment
Justice Bennett ruled the father's final wishes should stand, bringing the bitter family feud over his multimillion-dollar estate to a close. 'It is wrong to look at current property values to argue the division was unequal,' she said, noting the sisters' holdings were 'not that dissimilar' and did not differ by 'millions of dollars'. She added even if Maria's properties were now worth less, she had owned them since 2001 and benefited from rental income for years. By contrast, Josephine did not receive key properties until much later.
Justice Bennett also accepted evidence that Mr Puopolo had grown disappointed with Maria in his later years. 'By the time of the 2012 will being executed, Alessio had been expressing to others his disappointment that Maria did not visit often enough,' she said. 'While Maria and Nino say they visited Alessio and Domenica with some frequency, noting that there is no other corroborative evidence of this, it is still the case that relatively speaking Josephine was doing significantly more.'
Expert Takeaway
Solicitor Fadi Chahine said the case demonstrated that gifts or financial support received from parents while they are alive can significantly affect what children are entitled to inherit from their estate when they pass away. 'The court doesn't just look at the will in isolation, it looks at the full picture,' he said. 'In this case, one daughter had already received a company holding multiple Sydney investment properties during her father's lifetime. When the court weighed that up against what was left in the estate, it found she had already been adequately provided for.'
Mr Chahine said the statutory declaration proved 'crucial' by giving the court a clear record of the father's intentions and made the will very difficult to challenge. 'What really stands out in this case is what the father did to protect his wishes,' he said. 'He didn't just have a properly drafted will, he went one step further and signed a statutory declaration explaining exactly why he was leaving everything to one daughter and nothing to the other. A good will is essential but if you're treating your children differently, for whatever reason, put your reasons in writing. It could save your family years of costly and emotionally draining litigation.'
