Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 335

SMSFs the new battleground in family disputes

SMSFs are often the forgotten part of the succession-planning puzzle and are becoming a battleground for family disputes in Australia. SMSFs often hold the greatest pool of assets for the people in question. 

We see cases where there has been little thought on key issues such as succession of control or passing of death benefits. These have the potential to snowball into major problems, as demonstrated by several recent court cases. 

Many believe their affairs can be dealt with simply via a standard Death Benefit Nomination (DBN). These are easy to prepare, and while they work well in ‘happy family’ scenarios, they may not offer adequate protection when contested.

There are two main issues which have the most potential to create family disputes over an SMSF:

1. SMSF control

SMSF control is exercised by the fund’s trustee(s), as appointed under the terms of the trust deed. But who is best to sit in this position?

A corporate trustee can make succession a smoother transition, provide a clear separation of assets, and give greater protection for directors and shareholders when compared to an individual acting as trustee. The corporate trustee should only act as trustee for the SMSF, to avoid confusion.

It is dangerous to assume a member’s legal personal representative will take control of the SMSF, as superannuation law does not automatically require a legal personal representative to become a trustee in place of the deceased person.

Ensuring control passes with the intended beneficiary (where possible) is key. When using a corporate trustee, this means leaving the shares in the trustee company directly to the intended beneficiary, under the member’s will.

This alleviates the intended beneficiary from having to handle complications, which may arise with a third-party trustee or, in some cases, no trustee at all.

2. Superannuation death benefit nomination

Many SMSFs are comfortable to permit the trustee, which is often the surviving spouse or partner, to decide where the super will be paid. In this case, a non-binding nomination is usually the best option.

When might a binding nomination be more appropriate? First, some questions:

  • Are there children from an earlier or later relationship, which the SMSF wishes to give super?
  • Do you want to give your super to a surviving partner or child, which might become problematic if the gift is made through your Will?
  • Is the estate likely to be subject to a claim or litigation after death?
  • Is there any chance that a trustee might not abide by your wishes?

If it’s YES to any of these questions, a Binding Death Benefit Nomination (BDBN) may be more appropriate.

Importantly, the trust deed’s terms must be complied with if the nomination is to be legally effective and valid.

Whatever your wishes, a DBN should sit together with your will so both documents work together and account for your assets as a whole, ensuring the intended beneficiaries inherit what they are entitled to.

Consequences of not having a clear BDBN 

Let’s consider two examples of the consequences of not having a clear and technically compliant BDBN.:

1. Re Marsella: The case Re Marsella, from 2019, shows a greater willingness by the Court to intervene.

Helen Marsella was survived by her husband and two children from her first marriage, Caroline and Charles. Helen and Caroline had established an SMSF as trustees, with Helen as the sole member. When Helen died, Caroline became the sole trustee of the SMSF.

After Helen’s death, Caroline resolved as surviving trustee to pay the entire death benefit to herself, and also purported to appoint her husband as a trustee.

The Court intervened on the basis that Caroline had failed to inform herself of the relevant matters and thus had failed to actively and genuinely exercise her discretion. This situation could have been avoided if the right person was trustee, and a valid binding nomination was in place.

2. Munro v Munro: The 2015 case of Munro v Munro also shows how missing details in a BDBN’s technical requirements can bring things undone. Precision is vital, and errors may be minimised by seeking independent advice.

Munro left a will naming his daughters as his executors, and a document, prepared by his accountants, purporting to be a BDBN, and nominating the ‘Trustee of Deceased Estate’ to receive the benefits.

A binding nomination can only specify dependants or the member’s legal personal representative. This is required to fulfil Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS) legislation purposes, and for the purposes of the trust deed. A legal personal representative for SIS purposes means the executor of the deceased person’s will (or the administrator of their deceased estate). This created a problem for Munro.

Munro’s document did not nominate either a dependant of Mr Munro or his legal personal representative, which meant it did not comply with either the terms of the trust deed or the SIS legislation. It was therefore not a binding nomination for the purposes of the trust deed. This left the trustee (his wife from his second marriage) with discretion how to pay the death benefits.

If you are in doubt as to whether an appropriate structure is in place, we recommend seeking professional advice.

Adapting to changes

The introduction of the Transfer Balance Caps (TBC) from 1 July 2017 has potential to introduce more complexity into SMSF estate planning.

SMSFs are now limited by the TBC, and members have to consider what to do with the excess. Every situation is different but may involve

  • reversionary pension nominations
  • DBNs dealing with accumulation balances
  • benefits passing to an estate or an individual
  • testamentary trusts and superannuation proceeds testamentary trusts
  • life interest pensions, and
  • child pensions.

These options need to consider the family dynamic, including concerns about estate litigation and the ability of beneficiaries to manage their affairs. In some cases, the best strategy is one that does not provide the best tax outcome.

The key message for avoiding family disputes over an SMSF is to remember it’s not as simple as having a death benefit nomination.

 

William Moore is a Partner and Sam Baring a Senior Associate at Hall & Wilcox Private Clients. This article contains general information only and does not consider the reader’s individual circumstances.

 

  •   4 December 2019
  • 1
  •      
  •   

RELATED ARTICLES

Meg on SMSFs: Is a binding death benefit nomination worth it?

Watch out, it's not easy being the executor of an estate

Making death benefit nominations work for you

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

Retirement income expectations hit new highs

Younger Australians think they’ll need $100k a year in retirement - nearly double what current retirees spend. Expectations are rising fast, but are they realistic or just another case of lifestyle inflation?

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

Why super returns may be heading lower

Five mega trends point to risks of a more inflation prone and lower growth environment. This, along with rich market valuations, should constrain medium term superannuation returns to around 5% per annum.

The hidden property empire of Australia’s politicians

With rising home prices and falling affordability, political leaders preach reform. But asset disclosures show many are heavily invested in property - raising doubts about whose interests housing policy really protects.

Preparing for aged care

Whether for yourself or a family member, it’s never too early to start thinking about aged care. This looks at the best ways to plan ahead, as well as the changes coming to aged care from November 1 this year.

Our experts on Jim Chalmers' super tax backdown

Labor has caved to pressure on key parts of the Division 296 tax, though also added some important nuances. Here are six experts’ views on the changes and what they mean for you.        

Latest Updates

A speech from the Prime Minister on fixing housing

“Fellow Australians, I want to address our most pressing national issue: housing. For too long, governments have tiptoed around problems from escalating prices, but for the sake of our younger generations, that stops today.”        

Taxation

Family trusts: Are they still worth it?

Family trusts remain a core structure for wealth management, but rising ATO scrutiny and complex compliance raise questions about their ongoing value. Are the benefits still worth the administrative burden?

Exchange traded products

Multiple ways to win

Both active and passive investing can work, but active investment doesn’t in the way it is practised by many fund managers and passive investing doesn’t work in the way most end investors practise it. Here’s a better way.

Economy

The Future Fund may become a 'bad bank' for problem home loans

The Future Fund says it will not be paying defined benefit pensions until at least 2033 - raising as many questions as answers. This points to an increasingly uncertain future for Australia's sovereign wealth fund.

Investment strategies

Managed accounts and the future of portfolio construction

With $233 billion under management, managed accounts are evolving into diversified, transparent, and liquid investment frameworks. The rise of ETFs and private markets marks a shift in portfolio design and discipline. 

Property

Commercial property prospects are looking up

Commercial property is seeing the same supply issues as the residential market. Given the chronic undersupply and a recent pickup in demand, it bodes well for an upturn in commercial real estate prices.

Infrastructure

Private toll roads need a shake-up

Privatised toll roads in Australia help governments avoid upfront costs but often push financial risks onto taxpayers while creating monopolies and unfair toll burdens for commuters and businesses.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.