+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

Wills & Estates

Helping a child purchase their first home

Family Law, First Home Buyers, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wills & Estates
0

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

Trusts can protect assets

Criminal Law, Estate, Estate Planning, Property Law, Trust Law, Wills & Estates
0

But they cannot ring fence assets derived from fraud

On 26 March 2021, John Bracken was convicted of New Zealand’s largest GST fraud having fraudulently obtained $17,311,262.29 in GST refunds over a period of four years.

On 23 February 2026, the Commissioner of Police applied to the High Court for a profit forfeiture order over property in which Mr Bracken had an ‘interest.’ In other words, the Commissioner sought to recover assets unlawfully obtained from Mr Bracken’s criminal activities.

The most valuable assets acquired from Mr Bracken’s criminal activities, however, were held by the Bracken Family Trust and not himself personally.

Despite this, under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (CPRA), the court determined that the trust must forfeit $13 million of its own assets in response to Mr Bracken’s offending as he had an ’interest’ in the trust property.

 

Criminals may not profit from their actions

For the court to make a profit forfeiture order, it had to be satisfied that Mr Bracken had ‘unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity’ and that he had ’interests’ in property.

It was quite clear that Mr Bracken had unlawfully benefitted from a significant criminal activity, so the question turned to whether he had an ‘interest’ in the trust’s property.

Discretionary beneficiaries cannot usually be said to have an ‘interest’ in trust property, because the property is legally owned and controlled by the trustees, not the beneficiaries. Discretionary beneficiaries do not have a legal right to the trust’s property, only a hope that the trustees might decide to distribute something to them, or that they will receive what is left when the trust comes to an end.

The Bracken Family Trust was unusual though, because Mr & Mrs Bracken had reserved a lot of power to themselves: they were settlors, trustees, discretionary beneficiaries, final beneficiaries and, as ‘Principal Family Members’, had the power to remove beneficiaries, and appoint and remove trustees.

Moreover, under the CPRA, an ‘interest’ in relation to property is much broader than simply owning something. It includes not only a legal or equitable interest in property, but also a right, power or privilege connected with the property.

In addition, the court can treat having ‘effective control over property’ as an ‘interest in property.’ As a part of this analysis, the court can have regard to ‘any trust that has a relationship to the property.’

The court determined Mr Bracken had both:

  1. An ’interest’ in the trust property both because he was a final beneficiary of the trust and due to his powers as a ‘Principal Family Member,’ and
  2. Effective control over the trust property, which was also due to his powers as a ‘Principal Family Member’ and that he was a trustee.

After much complex legal argument, the profit forfeiture order was granted with a maximum recoverable amount of $16,019,231.16, around $13 million of this was trust-owned property. The trust could retain the family farm (valued at $3.780 million), as this would allow the innocent beneficiaries to continue to benefit from this generational family asset. All the other remaining trust property was to be forfeited.

 

Trusts cannot shield ill-gotten gains

This case shows that while well-drafted trusts remain valuable and legitimate estate planning tools, they cannot be used as a shield for assets that have been acquired through crime – particularly in cases where the perpetrator has retained so much power over the trust assets that such power is tantamount to property (or an ‘interest’).

The court’s decision was said to be a strict statutory interpretation exercise, and there are clearly legitimate policy (and societal) reasons behind the CPRA having such a strong stance. It remains to be seen, however, whether a case involving a trust over which a criminal has few or no powers would result in the same outcome.

This case shows an intriguing relationship between statutory intervention and orthodox trust principles – giving us much to ponder.

 

 

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

Review of adult decision-making capacity law

Elder Law, Estate Planning, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Property Law, Wills & Estates
0

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

When a DIY will goes wrong

Estate, Estate Planning, Legal Advice, Wills & Estates, Wills & Probate, Wills & Trusts
0

Seemingly small mistake brings significant consequences

Most people would never expect a Do It Yourself will, bought from a stationery shop to end up before a High Court judge. Yet that is exactly what happened in Oga v Bourne,[1] a recent case that shows how a seemingly small mistake in a will can have significant consequences after the will-maker dies.

 

The DIY will

Joan Bourne completed a shop-bought DIY will kit in 2017 with the assistance of her daughter. Joan wanted her estate to be divided equally among seven of her eight surviving children. She deliberately excluded one son, who had previously indicated that he did not wish to inherit from her estate.

Like many people using a DIY will kit, Joan and her family encountered legal terminology they did not fully understand. They believed the ‘bequests and legacies’ section was where they should list the people who were to inherit the estate. They therefore wrote the names of the seven intended beneficiaries in that section; however, they left blank the section dealing with the ‘residue’ of the estate because they did not understand what it meant and it didn’t make sense to them to list everyone’s names twice.

Unfortunately, this seemingly minor mistake created a significant legal problem.

In legal terms, a ‘bequest’ usually refers to a specific gift, while the ‘residue’ is everything left in an estate after debts, funeral expenses, administration costs and any specific gifts have been dealt with. As Joan had listed only the beneficiaries’ names without specifying any gifts, and had left the residue clause blank, the will did not effectively dispose of her estate.

 

High Court application

After Joan died in 2022, her executors could not get probate of the will, so they had to apply to the High Court under the Wills Act 2007. They asked the court either to interpret the will or to correct it so that it reflected Joan’s true intentions.

Joan’s family members and the witnesses who were present when she signed the will all gave evidence that she intended her estate to be shared equally among seven of her eight children. Even the excluded son confirmed that he did not expect to inherit and supported the application.

The court found that simply interpreting the wording of the will would not solve the problem because putting the names in the wrong section made the clauses effectively meaningless. However, the court was satisfied from the evidence that Joan’s actual intentions were clear, and the will failed to give effect to them. Using its powers under the Wills Act 2007,[2] the court corrected the will by replacing the defective clauses with one directing that the residue of Joan’s estate be shared equally among the seven intended beneficiaries.

 

Why was this case unusual?

It is important to understand that the court does not have a general power to correct wills simply because a mistake has been made. Before correcting a will, the court must be satisfied that there was a clerical error, or that the will did not give effect to the will-maker’s instructions (where the will was prepared by someone else). In this case, the applicants argued that the will did not give effect to Joan’s instructions. The court may then correct the will to carry out the will-maker’s intentions. This requires reliable evidence of what they intended. In many cases, particularly where family members disagree or no one can clearly explain what the deceased intended, that evidence may not exist. In those circumstances, an incorrectly prepared will may not be capable of being fixed.

While in this case the outcome ultimately reflected Joan’s wishes, it came only after court proceedings, significant legal costs and considerable delay. More importantly, this result was unusual. The court was able to correct the will because there was compelling evidence of what Joan had intended. Multiple witnesses gave consistent accounts of Joan’s intentions, every interested family member agreed, and even the excluded son supported the application.

 

Lessons

The decision highlights several important lessons for anyone wanting to make a will. Legal documents often contain technical terms that have specific legal meanings, even though the words themselves may seem familiar. A misunderstanding of terms such as ‘bequest’ or ‘residue’ can have significant consequences.

While DIY will kits can produce legally valid wills, they rely on the person completing them to understand how the document works. A simple mistake may not become apparent until after the will-maker has died – when it is all too late.

This case also illustrates that what appears to be a saving at the outset can become a much greater expense later. While having a will professionally prepared involves an upfront cost, unclear drafting can result in litigation, delays in administering an estate and legal costs that far exceed the cost of obtaining legal advice.

More importantly, disputes over a will can place additional emotional strain on grieving families at a time when certainty and clarity are needed most.

For most people, making a will is one of the most important legal decisions they will ever make. While DIY will kits remain an accessible option for many people, Oga v Bourne is a timely reminder that preparing a will is not simply about filling in a form.

Spending a little more time – or obtaining professional advice where needed – may save your loved ones from costly litigation, unnecessary uncertainty and additional stress after you are gone.

 

[1] Oga v Bourne [2025] NZHC 3685.

[2] Section 31.

 

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 eSpeakingmay 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

Charitable Giving, Estate Planning, Family Law, Trusts, Wills & Estate Planning, Wills & Estates
0

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 

Purchasing a house

Conveyancing, First Home Buyers, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wills & Estates, Young Professionals
0

Lukes friend Tom was excited to have found a property he wanted to buy and was preparing to make an offer. Having purchased property before, Luke suggested Tom speak with a lawyer before signing anything and passed on his lawyer’s contact details.

 

When Tom met with the lawyer, he learned about the purchase process and the importance of protecting his assets. Although he intended to buy the property in his sole name, he had not considered the implications of relationship property laws or the need for a Contracting Out Agreement with his girlfriend.

 

Although Tom wanted to make an unconditional offer to appeal to the vendor, his lawyer advised he needed the following conditions:

  1. KiwiSaver Approval Condition: To get KiwiSaver approval, Tom’s lawyer would need to send an application to his provider, who could take 10 to 15 working days to respond.
  2. Finance condition: Tom’s conditional loan approval from his bank was not enough. He needed unconditional approval and time to work through the bank’s conditions.
  3. Builder’s report condition: Although the property looked in good condition at a glance, there could often be structural issues that only a qualified building inspector would identify.

 

The agreement was signed and Tom started working through his conditions. The builder’s report identified some major structural issues in the living room and he ended up negotiating a significant price reduction from the vendor.

 

Tom soon satisfied his conditions, and settlement was complete a few weeks later. He was glad he took the time to work through his due diligence prior to purchasing.

Macayla Brdanovic

Planning the Next Chapter: Navigating Retirement with Confidence

Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA), Estate Planning, Retirement Planning, Senior Living, Succession Planning, Wills & Estates
0

Waipa is becoming one of New Zealand’s most attractive retirement destinations, with new retirement villages reflecting a growing community preparing for the next chapter of life.

For Steve, this became personal when his grandmother started talking about leaving the family home she had lived in for over 40 years. It wasn’t just a house to her — it was where she raised her children, hosted countless Sunday dinners, and built a lifetime of memories. The idea of moving brought both practical questions and a deep sense of emotion for the whole family.

Steve noticed that while his grandmother was ready for a simpler lifestyle, she was unsure about what came next — whether to downsize, consider a retirement village, and whether her legal affairs were still in order.

Together, they discovered her Will hadn’t been reviewed in many years and no longer reflected changes in her family or her current wishes. It was a gentle reminder of how easily these documents can become out of date over time. They also spoke about Enduring Powers of Attorney, ensuring the right people could step in if needed, and the importance of carefully understanding retirement village agreements before making any decisions.

Taking the time to get everything in order gave Steve’s grandmother real peace of mind. It also reassured Steve and the rest of the family that her wishes were clear and would be respected.

With the right planning and legal guidance from the team at Edmonds Judd, what initially felt overwhelming became a clear, supported transition — allowing Steve’s grandmother to focus on enjoying her next chapter with confidence, comfort, and security.

 

Rachael Beattie

Over the fence

Employment Law, Government & Policy, Rural & Agricultural Law, Succession Planning, Trusts & Asset Planning, Wills & Estates
0

Biosecurity overhaul

In July 2025, the Ministry of Primary Industries released its proposed ‘Biosecurity System Action Plan.’ It is intended to guide new legislation to amend the Biosecurity Act 1993, and to overhaul current biosecurity regimes to improve process, obligations and rights. This will impact importing/exporting, practices on farm and government accessibility to farms.

The action plan is presented in two tranches. The first focuses on immediate priorities – clarifying roles, modernising processes and providing training tools. The second tranche will build on successful initiatives, consider social and cultural impacts and develop long term resolutions. Significant progress on both tranches by 2030 is proposed.

Key proposed amendments following submissions and consultation include:

  • Placing greater decision-making discretion with regional councils and management agencies – including the ability to create exemptions, issue permits for pests and produce small scale management plans
  • Increasing and introducing new penalties, including for obstructing a lawful search
  • The ability to grant one-off or ad hoc permits for imported goods, and
  • Removing the need for the current exemption for regional councils to enter private land to manage pests.

A draft bill is anticipated to be presented to Parliament in late 2026.

To read more on the Biosecurity System Action Plan, the steering group workshops and the proposed next steps, click here.

 

Employee v contractor

On 21 February 2026, a new ‘gateway test’ was introduced to determine whether an individual is an employee or a contractor in terms of employment law. The gateway test does not apply retrospectively.

Gateway test: An individual is a contractor if they meet all the gateway test criteria. These are:

  • There must be a written agreement stating they are an independent contractor or are not an employee
  • No restriction from working for others (except while undertaking agreed work)
  • They are not required to work at a specified time/period OR they can subcontract the work, subject to legally required or justifiable vetting
  • Additional future work can be declined without the arrangement being terminated, and
  • There has been a reasonable opportunity to seek independent advice before entering into the arrangement.

If all criteria are satisfied, the individual is a contractor. If any of the criteria is not met or for claims brought prior to 21 February 2026 the common law test (below) applies.

The four factors below are considered together to determine whether an individual is a contractor:

  1. Intention – what did the parties intend the relationship to be? Consider entitlements received – for example, contractors are not entitled to holiday pay.
  2. Control v independence – high employer control over hours, work and methods may be indicative of an employer/employee relationship
  3. Integration – is the role fundamental to an employer’s business and continuous in nature, and
  4. Fundamental/economic reality – does the economic reality reflect a person in business on their own account? Consider fee structure, tax obligations, ability for the individual to profit and who bears financial risk.

The distinction between an employee and contractor is highly relevant for the rural sector as you may have both contractors (such as sharemilkers and contract milkers) and employees (farm hands, managers, etc) working on your property.

 

Wills and EPAs: essential for rural sector

For people who are responsible for farms and other major assets, it is important to ensure you have a current will and Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs). If you don’t have these and you die unexpectedly, lose mental capacity, or are unable to attend to your personal affairs for a period, it could lead to not only farming operations being disrupted, but also family uncertainty and having to spend time and money on sorting things out.

Will: Your will sets out your instructions about the distribution of your property to your family after you die. Even if you have a will, it is good practice to regularly review it, so it reflects your current situation and wishes.

If you don’t have a will, there is legislation[1] that decides how your estate is divided up; this arrangement may not be what you would wish. To prevent this, it’s optimal (and much easier) to ensure you have a valid will that reflects your wishes. Your family will thank you for it.

EPA: An EPA is a legal document that allows a trusted person (your attorney) to manage your affairs and personal care. There are two forms of EPA – one covering property affairs and the other about your personal wellbeing. An EPA for personal care only applies if you lose mental capacity, while an EPA for property can also apply while you have capacity.

For a property EPA, your attorney could be a trusted friend or relative, or you could appoint a trustee company to manage your property matters.

For a personal care and welfare EPA, you can only appoint a person as your attorney.

We can help you set up EPAs and a will or, if you already have them, review them so they reflect your current situation.

[1] Administration Act 1969.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Rural 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 Rural 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

Planning for Tomorrow: Keeping Family Fair and Secure

Estate Planning, Family Law, Legal Guidance, Life Planning, Trusts & Wills, Wills & Estates
0

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

Planning Ahead: How Enduring Powers of Attorney Helped Steve’s Family

Caring for Aging Parents, Client Stories, Elder Law, Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPA), Future-Proofing Your Family, Health & Wellbeing, Legal Tips, Life Planning, Peace of Mind Planning, Wills & Estates
0

A few years into Steve’s retirement, things started to change.

 

Steve was not quite himself anymore. He became forgetful, sometimes confused, and would occasionally lose track of where he was or what he had planned for the day. At first his children, Luke and Sally thought it might just be part of getting older. But over time, it became clear that it was something more serious. Steve was beginning to lose mental capacity.

 

It was a difficult time. Watching the strong and capable father they had always relied on start to struggle was heartbreaking. But one thing made a huge difference. Steve had prepared for this.

 

Years earlier, with the help of Edmonds Judd, Steve had put in place Enduring Powers of Attorney. He had taken the time to meet with a lawyer, talk through his options, and sign the documents while he was still well and able to make decisions for himself. He had appointed both types of attorney. One for property, which would allow his children to manage his finances and property. And one for personal care and welfare, where he had named Sally as his first attorney to make decisions about his health and daily care.

 

When Steve’s condition worsened, Luke and Sally were able to step in without any delays or uncertainty. Luke handled the financial side, making sure bills were paid and everything stayed in order. Sally worked closely with Steve’s doctor and made the final call on his treatment when he was no longer able to do so himself.

 

There was no need to go through the courts. There were no arguments about what should happen or who should decide. Steve had made his choices clear, and they could simply carry them out.

Because of the advice and support he received from Edmonds Judd, Steve’s family had the tools they needed to care for him with clarity and compassion. His wishes were protected, and his children could focus on what mattered most.

 

It was not just legal paperwork. It was peace of mind. And it made all the difference when Steve and his family needed it most.

Georgia Willard

Get in touch today, we’d love to talk.

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]