EstatePlanning

Retirement villages are becoming a popular option for New Zealanders planning their retirement, but it is not the same as buying a house. Most villages provide an Occupation Right Agreement (ORA), which gives you the right to live there and use the facilities rather than legal ownership. Here are a few common misconceptions that can catch people out.

  1. “Weekly fees cover all my costs”
    Weekly fees usually cover village services (gardening, security, communal facilities), but residents often still pay for utilities, care services, or extra support.
  2. “All the money will go back to my family when I die”
    Your entry payment will likely not be returned straight away when you leave or pass away. In reality, it depends on the terms of the ORA and can often require the unit to be re-licensed to a new resident. Most villages will also deduct what’s often called a deferred management fee which can be up to 20–30% of the original entry price
  3. “All Contracts Are the Same”
    Not all retirement villages play by the same rules. Fees, exit conditions, and benefits vary, and small differences can have a big impact.

Moving into a retirement village is a big decision, both legally and financially. If you are considering this step, it is important to seek advice from your lawyer, so you fully understand what it means for you and your family.

 

Georgia Willard


Danger of breaching duties

When you buy a house in your own name, and you need a loan to do it, you will be the borrower, the owner and the security provider (mortgagor).

In some situations, these are different people. For example, the owners might be the trustees of a trust, but the borrower is an individual. There are good reasons for this sort of structure, particularly from a relationship property or creditor protection perspective. This does, however, make things complicated from the lender’s perspective, and can sometimes cause them to inadvertently ask trustees to breach their duties, as this article will explore.

 

Borrowing vs security

Whoever buys a property, be that you or your partner, a company or the trustees of a trust, as the owners you are the only ones who can give the lender a mortgage. The reason is that you cannot grant a mortgage, which is a type of security that is registered against a title to ‘real property’ (another word for land or ‘bricks and mortar’) unless you are named on the record of title as the owner or owners of the property.

There are a number of reasons why the borrower (person borrowing the money from the lender) and the security provider (person giving a mortgage or a guarantee) might not be the same person:

  • For asset protection purposes you will usually be the borrower, while the trustees will provide a mortgage by way of security, and there will be a guarantee linking them together (sometimes called an ‘interlocking guarantee’)
  • If a child is borrowing money to buy a house and their income is deemed insufficient to service a mortgage, a parent might guarantee their lending, or
  • If a company borrows 100% of the purchase price of a property, the shareholders (and sometimes the director/s), will be required to sign a guarantee (and often mortgage security over another property as well).

 

Trustee duties

When trustees are asked to provide security, whether in the form of a mortgage, a guarantee (or both), they must be mindful of their duties to all of the beneficiaries of a trust. These include duties:

  • To invest prudently, and in doing so must exercise the care and skill that a prudent person of business would exercise in managing the affairs of others,[1]
  • Not to bind or commit trustees to future exercise of discretion:[2] they may, for example, be called on to honour the guarantee in the future by paying the beneficiary’s lending, and
  • To be impartial as between the beneficiaries:[3] Will giving the guarantee be unfairly partial to one beneficiary if the trustees cannot do the same for another?

Trustees also have an overarching duty of care which encapsulates hundreds of years of case law[4] which makes it clear the trustees’ duty is to hold or deal with trust property for the benefit of the beneficiaries as a whole.

 

Unlimited guarantees

An unlimited guarantee states that the guarantor is liable for all amounts the borrower owes, however much that is, until every cent owing has been repaid, or the guarantor is released from their obligations.

As an example, if a beneficiary of a trust borrows $750,000 to buy their first home, and the trustees of the trust sign an unlimited guarantee, the trustees’ liability can extend to:

  • The $750,000 loan
  • The borrower’s car loan they take out a year later
  • The new loan for renovations taken out three years after that, and/or
  • The borrower’s credit card debt.

This could breach a number of the trustees’ duties.

 

Best practice

Trustees should not sign an unlimited guarantee without first considering their duties to all the beneficiaries. In many cases, consideration of their duties will lead trustees to realise that it would be more prudent to sign a limited guarantee.

While all the major lenders are familiar with and will grant a limited guarantee, they will issue an unlimited guarantee by default unless you ask specifically.

If you think that as a trustee you will be asked to guarantee a beneficiary’s lending, make sure you ask for that to be a limited guarantee.

[1] Section 30, Trusts Act 2019.

[2] Section 33.

[3] Section 35.

[4] Section 29.

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 Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      M: 029 286 3650


What is an executor?

An executor is named in a will as the person the will-maker appoints to administer their estate after their death and to carry out the terms of their will.

Executors have a number of responsibilities. Their first task is usually to locate the will-maker’s most recent will and, through their lawyer, apply for a grant of probate, so they have authority to manage the estate. Where a will doesn’t name an executor, or they are unwilling or unable to take on the role, an application must instead be made for a grant of administration, and that person will be known as an administrator. Their role is the same as an executor’s role.

Once the executor has authority to do so, they must identify estate assets and bring them into the estate. This means putting those assets into the name of the estate, closing bank accounts, withdrawing KiwiSaver, selling shares and, in many cases, selling land or property. Sometimes executors need to recover estate assets by filing claims in court. Executors are also responsible for paying any estate debts and liabilities.

Executors must also comply with any other legal obligations, such as keeping detailed records, providing information to certain people, filing tax returns and following any court orders.

 

Is an executor a trustee?

An executor’s role is similar to, but not the same as, the role of a trustee. Three key similarities are:

  1. Executors and trustees must both act in the interests of the beneficiaries, rather than in their own interests
  2. They must follow the terms of the will or trust document, and
  3. They cannot be paid for their role unless the will or trust document allows this.

An executorship typically lasts until all of the estate assets have been identified and brought into the estate, all debts have been paid, and any litigation about the validity or terms of the will, or how the estate should be distributed, has finished.

After all those steps are completed, an executor ‘transitions’ to become a trustee. At that stage the executor has become a trustee and holds the estate assets on trust for the beneficiaries of the estate. Once certain time limits have passed, the estate assets will usually need to be distributed to the beneficiaries.

 

Distribution

An executor’s role is often thought to come to an end when the estate assets are distributed to the beneficiaries. This is known as ‘final distribution.’ Usually, there is nothing left for an executor to do at this point.

However, the role of executor (or administrator) never truly comes to an end. Unless an executor or administrator is appointed by the court for a limited period or purpose, it is an appointment which lasts for life. After the final distribution, the executor role essentially becomes dormant as there are no more assets for the executor to administer. In some cases, though, that will change unexpectedly.

As set out in a 2023 case,[1] further assets might be discovered which need to be administered by an executor or administrator. This may happen when the will-maker:

  • Had assets in multiple countries, such as bank accounts, some of which were not discovered immediately after their death
  • Was entitled to an inheritance, but payment was delayed for many years (for example, until a house was sold or a different relative died), or
  • Became entitled to an insurance or compensation payment some years after their death, but which was not originally known about at the time of their death (for example, as an insurance policy was held overseas).

When an estate receives new assets, this will revive the role of the executor or trustee, even if that role had previously come to an end.

 

The good, and the bad

An executor’s role can also be revived for less happy reasons. Sometimes a new liability is discovered after all the assets have been distributed; the executor is responsible for dealing with this. As long as the executor has advertised for creditors under section 79 of the Trusts Act 2019, they will usually be protected from being personally responsible for paying the liability.

This illustrates the importance of attending to the estate administration thoroughly, and taking legal advice before making a final distribution – or what you might think is a final distribution!

 

Conclusion

Being an executor is a big responsibility, and it is not always over when you think it has been completed. If you are considering who to name as executor in your will, you should be aware that the role is very important and can last longer than expected.

If you are named as an executor, think carefully before accepting the role, and to take legal advice if you are unsure about anything.

 

 

[1] Schischka v Schischka [2023] NZHC 2275 at [60].

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 Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Copyright, NZ LAW Limited, 2025.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected]      M: 029 286 3650


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