A former nurse is facing a court order to return $500,000 she inherited from a 92-year-old patient to his family in Australia. Abha Anuradha Kumar was instructed by the Australian Supreme Court to return the remaining $800,000 of the inheritance from Lionel Cox, whom she had known for less than a month.
On November 21, Judge Melissa Daly revoked Kumar’s authority to manage Cox’s estate and sell his home in Victoria. This decision followed allegations from a lawyer representing Cox’s cousin, claiming that Kumar’s inheritance was secured under suspicious circumstances.
Kumar first met Cox on July 3, 2015, while working as a manager at Cambridge House, an elderly care facility in Collingwood. According to documented accounts, Kumar discovered within just three days of Cox’s arrival that he owned property and had not written a will, as he had no immediate relatives. She then obtained a will kit and urged two coworkers to witness Cox’s signing of the will.
Reports indicate that Kumar did not inform anyone that she was the sole executor and beneficiary of the will. Cox passed away from pneumonia on August 9, 2015. Kumar was not working the day he died, but she contacted a junior staff member at the facility to help locate Cox’s house key for when his body was taken away.
Following his death, Kumar was listed as the informant on Cox’s death certificate, which allowed her to receive the grant of probate. The court’s decision to revoke her inheritance arose after the State Trustees filed a revocation request in August 2021, arguing that Cox’s will did not reflect his true wishes.
In 2019, Kumar was banned from working as a registered health practitioner due to allegations of professional misconduct investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Board. Originally, she was set to inherit over $1 million from Cox’s estate, but the amount reduced after she paid administrative and legal costs, including $150,000 for a hearing in 2019.
The Nursing and Midwifery Board remarked that Kumar disregarded the professional boundaries that should exist between a nurse and her patient, claiming she became too involved in Cox’s personal matters.
Cox’s cousin’s lawyer stated that the court’s ruling serves as a crucial reminder that the law ultimately prevails, particularly in cases where vulnerable individuals may be manipulated into signing questionable documents.
