Home Publications D-I-Y wills: More like, D-I-Why on earth did I do that?

D-I-Y wills: More like, D-I-Why on earth did I do that?

31 Mar 2026

Wills & Estates

When it comes to wills, estates, and trusts, there’s DIY… and then there’s D-I-WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU DO THAT?

The Supreme Court of Queensland has just delivered a masterclass in why your will should never be drafted by, among others, your accountant, your cousin, your neighbour, or the nice lady at the post office who “did one for her uncle once”.

**Summary of Di Trapani v Di Trapani [2026] QSC 20**

Mr and Mrs Di Trapani were financially conscientious individuals who approached their spending with caution. In line with this careful approach, they attempted to minimise costs when revising their wills in November 2010 by engaging an accountant, rather than a lawyer, to prepare the updated documents.

The judge observed that the accountant believed he had been “entrusted” with preparing the couple’s wills partly because the Di Trapani’s were concerned that involving lawyers might lead to expensive and time‑consuming disputes.

According to materials the accountant later provided during the proceedings, he claimed his role was limited to re‑typing the wills from an earlier version. Unfortunately, he neither kept a copy of the original document he relied on nor recorded who had drafted it.

Regardless, the court concluded that he had had likely played a more substantial role than he asserted. This inference was reinforced by the invoice he issued, which included charges for “assistance with the preparation of new wills, discussions and recommendations regarding those wills and their drafting; execution of various documents; and work relating to company structure, the family trust, and income matters.”

Proceedings

Mrs Di Trapani was predeceased by her husband, Mr Di Trapani, in 2012. These proceedings relate to the will of Mrs Di Trapani, who died on 21 November 2023. Her final will was executed on 24 November 2010.

A dispute has arisen about several clauses within the will. As a result of the uncertainty of the document, two of her four surviving children, acting as executors, sought court declarations on how those clauses should be interpreted and requested judicial advice under s 96 of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) (Similar provisions exist in Western Australia). Additionally, one executor—also a beneficiary—separately applied for clarification of another clause.

The couple had operated their business and financial affairs through two entities – Di Trapani Constructions and Glutolo, as well as a discretionary family trust, for which Glutolo acts as trustee.

The legal consequence of this that some assets were owned by entities and not Mr or Mrs Di Trapani. A will can only deal with the gifting of assets of a person. Any attempt to deal with assets not the property of the person is ineffective.

D-I-Why on earth did I do that?

Justice McCafferty helpfully pointed out:

“This is what happens when you don’t use a lawyer.” (“Her last will… was not drafted by a lawyer. It was prepared by an accountant…”)¹

And oh, did it show.

Lessons from the judgment

You can’t give away what you don’t own

The will purported to gift multiple properties, except the deceased didn’t own them. They were owned by a family trust.
Justice McCafferty respectfully but firmly pointed out:
- “Mrs Di Trapani did not own any assets in the Trust.”²

Section 33J of the Succession Act is not a magic wand

Some parties argued the will should operate as if the deceased had a “general power of appointment” over trust assets.
The Court disagreed.
“Mrs Di Trapani did not have a general power of appointment over the assets of the Trust.”³
In other words: A will can’t make a trustee do things the trustee has no legal power to do.

The drafting created gifts that simply… failed

Because the deceased didn’t own the properties, and had no power to force the trustee to transfer them, the Court held:
- “The purported gifts… fail.”⁴
Imagine thinking you’ve left your children real estate, only for the Court to say: “Lovely thought, but legally meaningless.”

The accountant’s notes? Not helpful. Not reliable. Not admissible

The Court diplomatically described the notes as:
- “Unhelpful… difficult to rely upon… without context.”⁵
This is judicial code for: “Please stop using non-lawyers as will writers.”

The clause telling companies not to sue each other? Also, unenforceable

The will tried to instruct two companies to forgive intercompany loans.
The Court’s response:
- “It is beyond the capacity of Mrs Di Trapani to require distinct corporate entities to forgive loans.”⁶
Because, a will cannot override corporate law.

The $400,000 gifts? Actually two separate gifts

The accountant’s drafting created confusion, but the Court salvaged it:
- Clause 8.7 = $400,000 gift.
- Clause 8.8 = a further $400,000 if no debt existed.⁷
The Will, as it was written, provided that the son gets $800,000, if he owed nothing.
A lawyer would have drafted this clearly. A non-lawyer drafted it with much ambiguity.

Take aways

Ultimately, Di Trapani stands as a quiet but powerful reminder that the integrity of an estate begins long before a death, it begins at the drafting table. The Court’s painstaking reconstruction of the testator’s intentions underscores how easily ambiguity creeps in when wills are prepared without proper legal advice.

Precision in estate planning is not a luxury – it is a safeguard.

The attempt to save a modest amount at the time of the preparation of the will resulted in confusion and the expense of Supreme Court proceedings. It was an example of “penny wise and pound foolish”.

Do not leave your estate planning to unqualified hands. Contact Iain Freeman or Kerri Meyers today if you or your family require a will.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should seek legal advice in relation to any particular matter you may have before relying or acting on this information. The Lavan team are here to assist.