Family Law Archives | Edmonds Judd

Helping a child purchase their first home

August 28, 2026

Family Law, First Home Buyers, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wills & Estates

When Luke and Yassica’s daughter Mildred decided to purchase a house, Luke and Yassica were keen to support and help her. Then Mildred told Luke and Yassica that she was going to purchase with her partner Jack so that they could combine resources. They were still struggling to be able to afford the sort of house that Luke and Yassica thought they should live in. Luke and Yassica had some savings that they were happy to allow Mildred and Jack to use, so they started thinking about how they could best help Mildred and Jack.

After talking to their solicitor, Luke and Yassica proposed to Mildred and Jack that they would provide them with $25,000 towards their purchase. Luke and Yassica’s solicitor would prepare a simple document that would record that the payment of $25,000 would be a loan to Mildred and Jack. Mildred and Jack would not be required to pay any interest, no security would be taken, but they would need to agree that the loan could be called up at any time. This arrangement gave Luke and Yassica the comfort of knowing that they were helping Mildred and Jack to get into a lovely home, but if Mildred and Jack’s relationship ended, Luke and Yassica would be able to call for repayment of the loan, so that the benefit of their hard-earned savings was kept in the family.

Evoto

Review of adult decision-making capacity law

August 24, 2026

Elder Law, Estate Planning, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Wills & Estates

Law Commission recommendations

The Law Commission recently reviewed the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act). This legislation governs how decisions are made for adults who lack capacity and can no longer make some decisions for themselves.

The PPPR Act applies widely; it includes adults who have declining capacity due to dementia, lack capacity due to intellectual disabilities or have a temporary loss of capacity (for example) due to injuries.

The Commission has made a number of recommendations for reform, particularly regarding property managers and welfare guardians who are appointed by the court to make decisions for people who cannot make decisions themselves.

Overall approach

The Commission recommends repealing the PPPR Act and replacing it with new legislation. The biggest shift is away from asking what is in a person’s ‘best interests’ (often considered paternalistic), and towards asking what the person’s own wishes, values and rights are, and how those can be respected.

Court-appointed decision-makers would be expected to support the person’s participation in decisions wherever possible; they would only step in to decide for them where genuinely necessary.

Changes to the roles of property managers and welfare guardians

The Commission also recommends renaming ‘property managers’ to ‘property representatives’ and ‘welfare guardians’ to ‘welfare representatives.’ The change reflects a shift in emphasis: these representatives would not simply make decisions they think are best, but would instead be required to represent the person’s wishes and values as far as possible.

Representatives would have clearer statutory duties. They would be required to act honestly, in good faith and with reasonable care, understand the person’s circumstances, support the person to participate in decisions, communicate in a way the person can understand, respect the person’s rights, and make decisions centered on the person’s wishes and values.

The scope of appointments might become more limited than they are currently. Representatives would only make decisions that the person lacks capacity to make and only where someone else genuinely needs to make those decisions. If a person retains capacity for some decisions, they would continue making those decisions themselves.

Property representatives would continue to have financial reporting obligations, and the existing financial limits on decisions they can make without court approval would be modified.

Welfare representatives could also be made subject to reporting requirements where appropriate. Representatives would also be expected to notify the court if significant changes occur that affect their suitability or the ongoing need for the appointment.

The court would have greater flexibility to tailor appointments. It could appoint multiple representatives, divide responsibilities, impose reporting obligations, require consultation between representatives and include safeguards where conflicts of interest exist.

Where a representative is also a spouse or partner, conflicts of interest would not prevent appointment, but specific conditions might be imposed from the outset to ensure conflicts of interest are handled appropriately.

Reasons for the proposed changes

Currently, many court-appointed representatives are family members with no legal training. The Law Commission found that the current duties are scattered between the PPPR Act and case law, making the roles difficult to understand. It recommends a single, clear list of statutory duties, and clearer obligations for representatives, so they are better equipped to understand their role and responsibilities.

The current law is also viewed as not sufficiently focussed on the person for whom decisions are being made. Property managers and welfare guardians are not always aware that they need to consider the person’s rights, wishes and values, rather than just making the decision they think is best.

Conclusion

Overall, the recommendations focus on encouraging people to participate in decisions which affect them and make as many decisions as they reasonably can make, but supporting them where needed. Where representatives are appointed, their role is to be as limited as possible and proportional to the lack of capacity in question.

If these changes become law, representatives will have clearer obligations, and will be accountable for respecting the rights, wishes and values of the person for whom they are making decisions.

The recommendations have not yet been considered by Parliament and may still evolve before any new laws are passed. It is, however, worth being aware that the roles and obligations of property managers and welfare guardians are likely to change in the coming years.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

‘Doomsday’ provisions in your will

August 5, 2026

Charitable Giving, Estate Planning, Family Law, Trusts, Wills & Estate Planning, Wills & Estates

You may recall the tragic story of English businessman, Richard Cousins, and his family, who all died together in a plane crash in Australia on New Year’s Eve 2017.

About a year before his death, Mr Cousins amended his will by adding ‘Doomsday’ provisions. The provisions stated that if he and his family died simultaneously, the majority of his large estate would pass to his elected charity, Oxfam. Due to Mr Cousins’ foresight, Oxfam received their largest donation ever at that time of £41 million.

What are Doomsday provisions?

Doomsday^[1] provisions (also referred to as fail safe, common catastrophe or calamity clauses) are back-up provisions in a person’s will. They set out what happens to your estate should all your beneficiaries pass away before they are able to receive their share.

This is the situation commonly referred to as Doomsday.

Why have Doomsday provisions?

The purpose of Doomsday provisions is to ensure that your estate passes to someone or somewhere you intend.

If a Doomsday/catastrophic situation occurs, and your will has no Doomsday provisions, uncertainty arises. The gifts in your will may fail and your estate (or the parts affected) may be distributed as if you died without a will (intestate).

In this situation, the intestacy rules set out in the Administration Act 1969 will apply. These rules set out who is entitled to your estate, even though they may not be beneficiaries in your will. Where your spouse or partner, and children have all died, your estate passes to your wider relatives in a set order, which can include:

Grandchildren/great-grandchildren
Parents
Siblings
Grandparents
Aunts and uncles, or
Half-aunts and half-uncles.

Ultimately, if there are no living beneficiaries to receive your estate, parts or all of it may pass to the Crown.

The prospect of such an outcome can be troubling to many people, particularly in the midst of increasingly complex family dynamics. If you have no Doomsday provisions in your will and all your beneficiaries are dead, your estate could be subject to administrative delay and litigation between those making a claim. The costs of these delays may be taken from your estate.

Planning for a ‘Doomsday’ may feel a remote or upsetting scenario. However, it is important to consider whether to include Doomsday provisions in your will. For example, if your family all travel together or all your beneficiaries are older than you, your estate is at a greater risk of being distributed in a way that does not align with your wishes without a such a clause.

Key considerations

When considering Doomsday provisions, it is important to take legal advice. They should be drafted to work with your family circumstances, the relevant legislation, and any other estate planning documents you have.

There are various ways a person may try to dispute your Doomsday provisions, and we can advise on strategies to reduce that risk. The more we know about your family dynamics and lifestyle, the better we can provide appropriate options.

It is particularly important that you let us know about any contracts, trusts, agreements and other documents which do, or could, affect your estate.

Doomsday provisions and trusts

You should also consider whether a Doomsday provision is appropriate for your family trust.

Without Doomsday provisions, a problem arises if all the trust’s beneficiaries die, or if the trust reaches its vesting date with no beneficiaries left to receive trust property. However, some trust deeds do have default beneficiary provisions to address this situation. We can assist you with reviewing your trust deed to advise you on this.

Adding Doomsday provisions

Adding Doomsday provisions to your will (or trust) increases certainty that your wishes will be followed and your property will be distributed to a person, organisation or cause you have chosen.

You may wish to name your siblings, close friends, iwi, religious organisations or charities as final recipients.

A charitable organisation is often a good option because charities usually remain operating long-term. Further, it provides the opportunity to help a cause that is close to your heart. And, if a charity is reliant on donations and bequests (as are most charities in New Zealand), such a donation may be life-changing for those they help.

^[1] Doomsday, originating from Old English, usually refers to the end of the world or a day of ultimate or catastrophic reckoning.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Fineprint is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Fineprint may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

Death, property and prenups

February 26, 2026

Estate Planning, Family Law, Property & Asset Protection, Property & Relationship Law, Wills & Succession

The Rimmer case has changed the rules – for the meantime

Many couples now sign agreements ‘contracting out’ of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. These contracting out agreements are commonly known as ‘prenups.’

Even though some prenups contain clauses that say couples must review the agreement every five years, or when a significant event happens (such as the birth of a child), they are almost never reviewed.

Early relationship prenups

What usually happens is that at the start of their relationship, a couple decide to buy a house together. They want to protect their respective deposits. They may have children from prior relationships to whom they want to leave their ‘share.’ They buy a house as tenants in common and sign new wills. They also sign a prenup stating:

Their shares in the house are their respective separate property
They may give each other a right to occupy their share of the home for, say, two years after their death, and
They intend leaving their separate property to their respective children.

What typically happens next is that the prenup and the wills are put into the bottom drawer and forgotten about. The couple may get married (which automatically revokes their wills), and/or they sell their first house and buy a new property that better suits their needs.

They often buy the new house as joint tenants as, after a lengthy relationship, they want to ensure their spouse inherits the home and cannot get kicked out by their late spouse’s children. When they die, their property lawyer would give them the standard advice that property that is owned jointly passes automatically by survivorship and does not form part of your estate.

Dying

When one spouse dies, leaving a mix of property in their personal and joint names, what happened next used to look like this:

Transmitting all jointly owned property (the house, the joint bank account, etc) into the sole name of the survivor
Identifying any property in the deceased’s sole name, and
If the deceased had a will, distributing in accordance with that, or If the deceased died without a will (intestate), distributing in accordance with the Administration Act.^[1]

What happens now?

This long-standing estate administration process has recently been upended by the Rimmer decision in the Court of Appeal.^[2] This decision made two statements that have changed the way lawyers think about prenups:

It is the prenup (not the will, property law or the intestacy rules) that governs what part of the relationship property forms part of the deceased spouse or partner’s estate,^[3] and
A prenup will always be given effect to (unless successfully challenged) on the death of spouse or partner.^[4]

This has now changed the process to:

Finding out whether there is a prenup, and, if there is
Dealing with all the property specified in the prenup as set out in the prenup
If there is property NOT covered by the prenup, the survivor can either:– Apply for division of the relationship property that is not covered, or
– Receive their gifts under the will if there is one, or under the intestacy rules if there is not.

How is this different?

The rules of property law ordinarily decide what falls into an estate following someone’s death. That is, if they own an asset in their sole name (such as an identifiable share in a home, or a bank account in their sole name), that will form part of their estate. However, if they own property jointly with someone else, that will pass automatically to the surviving owner(s).

In saying that ‘the division instead proceeds in accordance with the s 21 agreement,’ Rimmer appears to be suggesting that property owned solely in the name of the deceased could nevertheless be transferred to the survivor if it is defined in the prenup as relationship property (particularly if the prenup specifies how relationship property is to be divided in the event of death).

That is a huge departure from the current rules, which state that, when someone dies, their executors (if they have a will) or administrators (if they die without a will) have a strict duty to distribute their property either in terms of the will or the intestacy rules.

If their spouse or partner disagrees with those rules, they can elect to file an application in the Family Court; whatever the court then decides takes precedence over the will or intestacy rules. Rimmer seems to suggest that the executors/administrators can circumvent the rules!

What next?

Now as a result of Rimmer, the first thing we as lawyers need to do is find out if there is a prenup – even if it is 30 years old!

Instead of just working out what passed by survivorship (with everything else going to the estate), we now must establish how a potentially outdated prenup applies to the property owned by the deceased many years later.

The Court of Appeal decision in Rimmer, may not be the last word, as the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal, so it may be that the rules change again.

For now, however, make sure if you have a prenup, that both your prenup and your will agree on what should happen to your property when you die.

If you think you have a prenup and you haven’t reviewed it in more than five years, now is the time to do so!

^[1] Section 77 of the Administration Act 1969.

^[2] Rimmer v Wilton [2025] NZCA 374.

^[3] Para [40].

^[4] Para [39].

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Trust eSpeaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Trust eSpeaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2026. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

Planning for Tomorrow: Keeping Family Fair and Secure

February 2, 2026

Estate Planning, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Life Planning, Trusts & Wills, Wills & Estates

As life moved forward, Luke’s family grew. He now had two children, including Mildred, whom he had adopted. It became important to Luke that both Mildred and his other daughter, Isabelle, were treated equally in his estate planning, so he contacted his lawyer.

Luke updated his will to reflect the new addition to his family. He ensured that his adopted child would be provided for on the same terms as his biological child, leaving no room for uncertainty. At the same time, Luke recognised that several antique items he had inherited from his late mother held special meaning for Sally and should ultimately pass to her. His will therefore specifically gifts those items to his daughter, Isabelle.

Luke appointed his brother and sister as executors and trustees, giving them responsibility for administering the estate. He also provided that the remainder of his estate be held on trust and shared equally between his two children when they reach the age of 18.

Luke also took practical steps to ensure his affairs were in order. He kept a copy of his will, his insurance policies, and a list of his bank accounts together in a secure drawer and made sure his brother and sister knew exactly where to find these important documents if anything were to happen to him. He also ensured they were aware that the original will is held securely at the Edmonds Judd office.

With everything clearly documented and the right people appointed, Luke now has peace of mind knowing his children will be looked after and his wishes will be carried out.

Georgia Willard

A New Chapter for Luke & Mildred

December 1, 2025

Adoption & Guardianship, Blended Families, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Parenting, Uncategorized

It had been a few years since his separation from Sally, but life was looking up for Luke. He got on well with Sally’s new partner, Emilio, and he had a great girlfriend of his own, Yassica.

Luke was co-parenting his daughter with Sally. Yassica also had a young daughter, Mildred, who Luke adored.

Mildred was the result of a happy accident between Yassica and Roy, a young dishwasher who used to work with Yassica at a local restaurant. Yassica welcomed the arrival of Mildred, but Roy had always maintained that fatherhood wasn’t for him.

Luke was aware of Mildred’s parentage, and a few years after being welcomed into Yassica’s home, he decided to talk to her about what the future holds.

“Yassica, listen”, Luke started. “I don’t really want to get married again. I feel like it’s an unnecessary expense, and I don’t need it to justify my love for you”.

“I understand completely” Yassica said. “We have better things to do with our money”.

“That being said, I have a deep affection for you and for Mildred, and I’ve come to think of myself as a father figure for her”

“I agree” Yassica said. “I think she thinks of you in the same way. Are you saying what I think you’re saying?”

“I think so” Luke said. “I think I would like to adopt Mildred”

Luke and Yassica booked an appointment to see a lawyer at Edmonds Judd, who explained the adoption process to them.

“First, we’ll need Roy to consent to the adoption. He would be giving up some pretty important rights. However, if Roy doesn’t want to consent, or if we just can’t get him to sign the consent forms for whatever reason, then we may be able to dispense with his consent, but hopefully it doesn’t come to that because dispensing with consent can be difficult” the lawyer explained.

“Following this, we would need to apply to the Court for an interim adoption order and then a final adoption order. This would give Luke all the rights of parenthood and, as far as the law is concerned, it would be as if Mildred was his own natural daughter.

Roy happily agreed to provide his consent, as he didn’t want to get in the way of Luke and Mildred’s happiness. The Court agreed that an adoption would promote the best interests of Mildred, and that Luke was a fit and proper person to adopt.

Once the interim adoption order was made, Luke and Mildred received a few visits from a social worker, who reported to the Court that all was going well, and after a final adoption order was made by the Court.

Luke, Yassica, and Mildred were delighted, and decided to have a party to celebrate the adoption with friends and family. But the thing with parties, is that not all attendees are always happy to be there…

Jamie Graham

Blending Families, Protecting Futures

November 26, 2025

Blended Families, Contracting out agreements, De Facto Relationships, Estate, Estate & Inheritance Planning, Family Law, Family Protection Act, Legal Life Planning, Property & Asset Protection, Relationship Property, Storybook Series, Wills & Succession

It had been eight long months since Sally separated from Luke, and things were looking up. She and Luke had amicably split, agreed on the division of relationship property, and settled child support issues. These were a weight off her shoulders, but single life had its challenges.

She noticed that she did not see the benefit of bulk grocery purchases or split utilities bills. Sure, child support helped, but things were still tough. She had heard of the “singles tax” but seeing it in action was another thing altogether.

At the recommendation of her colleague, Lucinda, Sally decided to get back into the dating scene. Luke fully supported her in this and even agreed to take the kids during his week so that she could meet with the rather dashing Emilio.

Emilio had a similar background. He was freshly divorced and had four children who split their time between their mother in Spain, and with Emilio in New Zealand.

The relationship was going well. So well in fact that Sally decided to approach Emilio about moving in together.

“Mi amor”, Emilio began. “I love the idea of moving in with you. I agree that we are ready for that step. However, I want to broach an issue with you. A rather uncomfortable issue”.

“What is it, Emilio?” Sally asked.

“You see, I have four children of my own. My Estate is more modest since the divorce, but I still have considerable assets. I want to protect my children’s future, and in order to do that, I must protect my assets from any potential claims made by you or your children” Emilio explained.

“Oh, I see” Sally said. “I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I too want to protect what I have. I wouldn’t want to split our collective property five ways between my one child and your four children – that doesn’t seem fair”.

The couple agreed that they would go and talk to a lawyer about their estate planning.

Their respective lawyers explained that with blended families, there could be overlapping claims under the Family Protection Act. If Emilio and Sally each continued into a de facto relationship, then the presumption of equal sharing would likely apply. At the same time, Emilio and Sally each had a moral responsibility to provide for their children.

Emilio and Sally decided to enter into a contracting out agreement, to protect their respective assets. They then agreed to sign their own Wills, which reflected the provision in the contracting out agreement that neither of them would make a claim against the other’s estate.

Emilio and Sally could relax into their life together, knowing that they had a succession plan that was tailored to their individual needs, so that they didn’t have to worry about any headaches down the road.

Jamie Graham

Surrogacy in New Zealand

July 28, 2025

Adoption & Guardianship, Family Law, Fertility & Assisted Reproduction, Law Reform & Legislation, Legal Process & Advice, Parenting & Reproduction

A complex and evolving area of law

For many of us, having a baby is relatively straightforward. For some, however, the road to parenthood is marked with U-turns, blind alleys, stop/go and much more. In the last few years, surrogacy has become an option for people for whom parenthood is not a straight path. And it’s all embedded in a legal framework.

In this country, surrogacy is a complex and evolving area of law, shaped by a combination of outdated statutes, modern reproductive technologies and ongoing legislative reform.

Legal framework

Surrogacy arrangements in New Zealand are legal, but is strictly regulated. The key, and very out-of-date, statutes governing surrogacy include the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004, the Status of Children Act 1969 and the Adoption Act 1955. It’s worth noting that commercial surrogacy is prohibited — only altruistic arrangements are allowed – there can be no fee involved. The intended parents may only reimburse their surrogate for reasonable expenses, not pay for their services.

Under current law, the woman who gives birth to the child (the surrogate) and her partner (if she has one and they consent) are the legal parents at the birth of the child, regardless of genetic connection. The intended parents, even if they are genetically related to the expected child, have no legal parental rights until they complete an adoption process through the Family Court.

Intended parents can be married, a de facto couple, same sex couple or single female applicant. There is a restriction on a single male applicant adopting a child unless there are special circumstances.

Surrogacy arrangements

Surrogacy agreements are not legally enforceable in New Zealand. This means that if a surrogate mother changes her mind and wishes to keep the child, the intended parents have no legal recourse to enforce the agreement.

We would strongly advise all parties to seek independent legal advice before entering any surrogacy arrangement. Intending parents of the child are required to obtain a report confirming they have received legal advice before they start the surrogacy process.

IVF and ECART approval

Where surrogacy involves in vitro fertilisation (IVF), the arrangement must be approved by the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ECART). This process includes medical, psychological and legal counselling for all parties, and an assessment and approval of the intended parents’ suitability to adopt. The intended parents also require consent from Oranga Tamariki.

Adoption process

After the child is born, the baby can be in the care of the intended parents with the birth mother’s consent and subject to placement consent by Oranga Tamariki.

The surrogate, and any partner, must register the birth promptly, and then at least 10 days after the date of the birth, receive legal advice and sign a consent to the adoption.

The intended parents must apply to the Family Court for an adoption order even if one or both of them are the genetic parents of the child. The court process involves a social worker’s report and a judicial determination that the adoption is in the child’s best interests. Only after the adoption order is granted do the intended parents become the child’s legal parents, and a new birth certificate is issued.

International surrogacy

International surrogacy arrangements present significant legal and practical challenges, and there are international legal requirements to meet. Specialist legal advice is required for these.

Law reform on the horizon

The current legal framework is widely regarded as outdated and unfit for modern surrogacy arrangements. The Improving Arrangements for Surrogacy Bill, introduced in 2022, aims to simplify the process, provide for parentage orders (rather than requiring adoption), and ensure that all parties’ rights and interests (including, importantly, those of the child) are better protected. This bill is currently at Select Committee stage.

If you want to know more about how surrogacy could work for your situation, please don’t hesitate to contact us. We are here to help.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2022. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected]. Ph: 029 286 3650

Family Law