A Melbourne-based PA took the children of her late boss to court saying she was in a de facto (in effect but not formally recognised) relationship with him and is therefore entitled to his inheritance.
As it stood previously, after his death at the age of 72, his five children inherited everything – a multimillion-dollar estate with properties in several countries – as his only legal heirs.
Zhenya Vernon worked for Italian-born millionaire actor Daniele Legler and insists their relationship become more than professional before his death; living together in his residence in Portugal since 2018. She added that she and her boss, who was 30 years her senior, had a joint bank account. From here, Vernon has withdrawn a total of 63,000 euros / US$67,510 since Legler’s passing.
Her first withdrawal came the day after his death and a second three days later. Vernon claimed that her boss had instructed her to so over the phone, just a few hours before the heart attack that led to his death. She added that she would “regularly transfer money from the cash account for both Australian and European living expenses.”
Vernon’s case was recently heard by the New South Wales Supreme Court, and she submitted texts and emails to prove the relationship. In addition, she has recently changed her last name to Legler “in memory of Dany”.
In court, Legler’s oldest child testified that she didn’t believe there was a relationship – but she did say she thought Vernon may have gone beyond the role of PA to being part of a sexual relationship with her father. Ultimately, though, her belief is that this is an attempt to cheat the five siblings out of their inheritance.
In the end Justice Ian Pike said Vernon was an “unsatisfactory and unreliable witness” and “motivated by self-interest and financial gain” but did acknowledge that she legally met the criteria of a de facto spouse. This was due to the fact Legler’s Portugal property could be considered their base; somewhere they lived together.
Justice Pike said: “I am satisfied that the relationship remained on foot as at the date of the death of the deceased”. He also ruled an independent person as administrator of the will going forward.
