+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]

wills

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 

Estate Planning and the Unexpected: A Family Law Story

Employment, Estate, Health Issues, House, Latest news, Social Media, Trusts
0

A tear trickled down Luke’s face as the hearse carrying his late father, Steve, drove away from the funeral home and down the road. It had been a beautiful service and his brother Bob, who owned a burger bar, provided some excellent catering. Steve had been a wonderful father, and had prepared for this moment by getting his Will and Enduring Power of Attorney sorted out nice and early.

As Steve’s executor, Luke immediately set about administering his father’s estate. It was an immense job, so he enlisted the assistance of Edmonds Judd. They met with him and explained the administration process and gathered from him an idea of Steve’s assets and liabilities. They applied to the High Court for Probate and contacted the banks, insurers and real estate agent on Luke’s behalf. They found the odd liability, such as a small credit card debt, and closed any outstanding accounts.

Luke was relieved. This was starting to look easy!

He put down the phone after talking to his helpful solicitor and poured himself a nice cup of tea. Then, just as he was sitting down, he heard a knock on the door.

“Who could that be?” he wondered aloud. He wasn’t too surprised, as he had had many callers recently offering their condolences. He was surprised however, to open the door to see himself staring back at him. Luke blinked in surprise.

“Luke”, the doppelganger said. “I am your brother. Your long-lost twin brother, as a matter of fact. I was adopted when we were just babies. I’m guessing from the look on your face that Steve never told you?”

Luke was shocked. The stranger was indeed identical to him, right down to the freckles on his nose and the way he turned up the cuff on his jeans. The stranger continued.

“My name is Han, and it’s nice to meet you. Listen, I know this is awkward timing, but my understanding is that Steve left behind a sizable estate. I’m going to need to some of that money, as I have significant gambling debts I need to pay off. That won’t be a problem, right? After all, it’s only right that I get a slice of the pie”.

Luke invited Han in for a drink, and pondered what to do next. Once Han had taken a few old photos of Steve and left, Luke picked up the phone and called his solicitor back, explaining the whole thing. His solicitor was very helpful.

“You see Luke, sometimes children who are left out of their parent’s Will can make a claim under the Family Protection Act 1955. The law says that parents have a moral duty to provide for their children. However, because Han was adopted out as a child, he won’t be able to successfully make a claim. The Adoption Act 1955 changes the legal relationship between adopted child and birth parent. Steve did not have to provide for Han in his Will”.

“I don’t know,” said Luke. “Is it really fair that Han not get anything out of the Estate?”

“Well, if you and the other beneficiaries of the Estate feel that way, you can enter what’s called a Deed of Family Arrangement”. It would record that the beneficiaries have come to an agreement to do something different to what’s in the Will, and that would allow us to make a distribution to Han. You would need to get all of the beneficiaries to agree, though”.

Luke thanked his solicitor and hung up the phone. He had a lot to think about. He decided to give his brother Bob a call, to see what he thought. But Bob was having his own problems at his burger bar…

 

Jamie Graham

Disinheriting your children

Estate, Kids, Property, Relationships, Trusts
0

Can it be done?

In New Zealand, people making wills have a great deal of freedom to dispose of their assets as they wish. If, however, a will-maker entirely excludes some close family members from their will, those people will often have claims against the will-maker’s estate.

In the recent case of what is known as the Alphabet case,[1] an abusive father tried to use a trust to disinherit his children on his death.

 

 

Family Protection Act 1955

The Family Protection Act 1955 is designed to protect family members who have been excluded from a will or left without adequate provision. It allows certain groups of people (including spouses, partners and children) to claim against an estate for further provision.

The court follows a two-step approach when evaluating claims under the Act. First, it must decide whether the will-maker owed a duty to the claimant and, if so, whether that duty has been breached. Second, the court must consider what is required to remedy the breach.

The court takes a conservative approach in making awards for further provision. It will do no more than the minimum that it believes is necessary to address any breach of duty. There is no presumption of equal sharing between children, and the court will not rewrite a will based on its own perception of fairness. There is no formula, however, for assessing what is required to remedy a breach; each case depends on its own facts.

Important factors will include the size of the estate, the claimant’s personal circumstances and other competing claims (such as from siblings or a parent/stepparent). In many cases, however, a financially stable adult child might expect to receive 10–15% of a parent’s estate. That could increase if a child is in poor circumstances or has suffered abuse at the hands of their parent.

 

 

Making a successful claim

When a successful claim is made under the Act, the award will be paid from the deceased’s estate. That necessarily means that claims are limited by the size of the estate. If a will-maker has gifted or transferred assets to a trust during their lifetime, or to other people, their estate may have little or nothing left in it. This has the effect of preventing estate claims because there is no estate available.

In the Alphabet case, an abusive father transferred his assets into a trust. His children wanted to bring claims against his estate, but there was nothing in it. They argued that they should effectively be able to unwind the transfer of assets to the trust, so that those assets went back into their father’s estate, and they could bring claims under the Act. This case went all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

 

Alphabet case

In the Alphabet case, the deceased father was referred to as Robert, and his children as Alice, Barry and Cliff. Alice, Barry and Cliff experienced egregious abuse at Robert’s hands and, understandably, did not have a relationship with him.

Robert took deliberate action during his lifetime to transfer most of his assets to a trust. None of his children were beneficiaries of that trust.

Alice, Barry and Cliff argued that Robert owed them fiduciary duties as a parent, and that he breached those duties when he abused them. They argued that the abuse created an ongoing fiduciary obligation which Robert breached when he transferred his assets into a trust. They argued that the transfer of assets could (and should) be unwound on this basis, and Robert’s assets returned to his estate; this would allow them to make claims under the Act.

Fiduciary duties are duties to put someone else’s interests before your own. They usually arise in relationships of particular trust and confidence. The Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of fiduciary duties between a parent and a minor child, but it found that these duties ended when the parent’s caregiving responsibilities ceased. It did not agree that there remained a fiduciary duty owing later on which would prevent Robert transferring his assets to a trust.

The court noted that the Act does not contain any mechanism to ‘claw back’ assets which have been put in a trust or transferred to another person in order to avoid estate claims. It noted that this might be the subject of future law reform but it was not existing law.

Robert’s three children therefore failed in their attempt to bring assets back into Robert’s estate, on which they could then have made Family Protection Act claims.

 

 

Law Commission

The Law Commission recently prepared a comprehensive review of succession law. It proposed that some form of anti-avoidance, or ‘claw back’ provision, be included in any law reform efforts that would address situations such as the Alphabet case.

While the government has considered the Law Commission’s report, it has not yet taken any steps to progress law reform efforts. For the time being, this means trusts may continue to be used in order to prevent some potential estate claims, particularly those brought by children.

[1] A, B and C v D and E Limited as Trustees of the Z Trust [2024] NZSC 161

 

 

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, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Why should I look at my will?

Estate, Kids, Property, Relationships, Retirement
0

Review at life’s milestones

You should review and update your will regularly. It is not something that, once done, you should just stick in a drawer and forget about. There are many significant milestones in life when you should think about whether your will is still appropriate for your unique circumstances.

 

If you don’t often review your will, particularly after important life milestones, you may discover (or worse, your family may discover after your death) that your will does not leave everything the way you intended. This means that certain people or causes may miss out on an inheritance or a gift in your will. Also, out-of-date wills can cause significant complications for the people involved in the management and distribution of your estate.

 

With the summer holidays coming up and some time away from the treadmill of daily life, this is an ideal time to review your will.

 

Buying a home is a milestone

Many people make a will when buying their first home. Although there is no reason why you cannot make a will before then, this is often the trigger when it feels like you have something significant to leave in your will. If you buy your home with someone else, usually you will want to leave the house to that person when you die. However, this is not always the case, particularly if you are not in a romantic relationship with that person.

 

If you have children from a previous relationship, you may want to ensure your partner can continue living in the house when you die but, ultimately, you want your children to inherit your share of the house. You may have borrowed money from other family members to help with the purchase that you need to repay first. Your will should be carefully drafted to make sure it truly reflects your intentions.

 

Joint ownership vs tenants in common: The ownership structure of your home, or any asset for that matter, is also very important to understand. ‘Jointly owned’ assets pass to the surviving owner/s when one owner dies. Assets which are owned as ‘tenants in common’ remain part of a person’s estate when they die and will be distributed under that person’s will.

 

Many people are not sure, or forget what type of ownership they have, especially if their house was bought many years ago. If you are unsure, or the ownership structure of your asset/s changes, you should review your will to make sure that everything will still be distributed as you want after your death. You should also review the ownership structure at the same time.

 

Marriage, separation and divorce

Getting married, separated or divorced are all events that have a significant effect on how your will might operate when you die. If you have a will and subsequently get married or enter into a civil union, your will is automatically revoked, unless your will is specifically worded as being in contemplation of that marriage or civil union. If it is not, you could effectively be left without a valid will, even though you have made one in the past.

 

In the case of a separation order or divorce, your existing will is not revoked but the law states that your spouse or partner is treated as having died immediately before you. This means any gifts to them will be void and, instead, any backup provisions in your will would come into effect. You should update your will after a separation or divorce to ensure that it will operate as you intend.

 

It is also important to know that the simple act of ‘breaking up’ with someone is not enough to have gifts to that person automatically voided. You should take the additional steps of obtaining a formal separation order or an order dissolving the marriage, and reviewing your will. If not, you could be left in the awkward situation of leaving everything in your will to your ex-spouse or partner – which may be a very unpalatable idea for some!

 

Birth or adoption of children

There’s a lot to think about when welcoming a child into your family and a review of your will may not be high up on the to do list. Your will should, however, assign guardianship of your children and account for their future needs, particularly if your child has special needs requiring a higher level of assistance. If there is a significant age gap between your children or you have children from different relationships, your will may need to be tailored to account for this.

 

Death of an executor, beneficiary or guardian

Executors are the people you name in your will to manage and distribute your estate when you die. A will-maker will often appoint a family member or someone to whom they are very close to carry out this role. It is important to have an executor who you trust who will do a good job.

The death of an executor, beneficiary or a guardian of your young children means your will may not work as intended or could create confusion. Do review your will if this happens or should your executor’s circumstances or health change.

 

Significant changes in financial position

Receiving a large inheritance or a significant capital gain on, say, property or business assets (or perhaps winning Lotto!) can significantly alter how you want your estate to be distributed when you die. You may decide to include additional beneficiaries – perhaps more distant family members or friends, or leave a gift to a charity that you care passionately about.

Although it’s not always the case, estates of relatively higher value are often more complex and require greater planning to ensure that everything runs smoothly when you die.

 

What if I don’t have a will?

If you die without a will (called an ‘intestacy’), your assets will be distributed according to the default rules established by law. Depending on your circumstances and who survives you, your assets would usually go to some combination of your spouse or de facto partner, children, parents and siblings. Even if some family members are estranged from you, they could still receive something from your estate under the default rules.

 

Other milestones

The milestones we have noted above for reviewing your will are not exhaustive. Starting a business, having a KiwiSaver account, moving countries, changes in your health and amendments to the law are all good reasons to look at updating your will.

 

If it’s been a while since you’ve looked at your will, we hope this article gives you the impetus to pull it out of that drawer and dust it off. Better yet, talk with us about it so you can have peace of mind knowing that, when you die, your loved ones will be taken care of as you wish.

 

 

 

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, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Providing for your family in your will

Estate, Kids, Property, Relationships, Retirement
0

You have some legal obligations

We all want to look after our families – both during our lives and after we die. One way you can make sure that your family is looked after when you die is by leaving behind a clear, well-drafted will.

 

In New Zealand, we have considerable ‘testamentary freedom,’ meaning we can generally choose how we want to distribute our personal assets after our deaths. Testamentary freedom has been a fundamental feature of New Zealand law for many years. There are, however, limits to testamentary freedom. We see these limits in action when claims are made against a family member’s estate.

 

Claims against an estate

Claims against estates can be made under the Family Protection Act 1955 which provides that you have  a moral duty to provide adequate maintenance and support for certain family members after your death. They include your spouse, children and sometimes grandchildren. Even if you have family members with whom you have had a poor relationship during your lifetime, if you do not adequately provide for their maintenance and support in your will, there is a risk they could make a claim against your estate.

 

If you want to leave unequal shares of your estate to your family members, or leave a close family member out of your will entirely, it is important to state this expressly in your will and to provide your reasons for doing so. This can reduce the likelihood of a successful claim being made against your estate.

 

Protecting beneficiaries from their own folly

If you are concerned about how a particular family member (a beneficiary) may use (or misuse) their share of your estate, you should discuss this with us before your will is drafted. Leaving your family members with a significant lump-sum of cash is not the only way to provide them with their share of your estate. There are options such as establishing a protective trust for their share or appointing trustees to manage money on their behalf. These options may ease your concerns.

 

Family members having different needs

If your family members have different needs, you may want to consider adjusting their share of your estate. With family members who have significant health issues or support needs, your obligation to provide for them may be greater.

 

Earlier this year, the High Court made a decision in a case,[1] upholding an earlier decision of the Family Court. That decision increased the proportion of a father’s estate that was awarded to his unwell son by a small amount. His son had been unable to work for several years due to his illness, and incurred costs associated with managing his illness. When his father awarded him a smaller share of his estate than his sister, the court decided this had breached his father’s duty to him. The duty to provide adequately for maintenance and support applied, even though the relationship with his father had been strained and dysfunctional over several years before his father’s death.

 

Repercussions of not providing for your family

If any of your family members have been left out of your will or have not been adequately provided for, they could make a claim against your estate.

 

When such a claim is made, the court can review the circumstances and make an award from the estate to remedy failure to provide adequate maintenance and support. This is why it’s important to talk with us about the drafting of your will. We can help you adjust your will to minimise the possibility of a successful claim against your estate.

 

Estate claims can cause increased distress, conflict and delays during an already challenging time for your family. The legal costs associated with defending such a claim can also significantly reduce the value of your estate.

 

Important to think this through

If you’re tempted to write your wayward son, estranged daughter or irresponsible spouse out of your will, it’s well worth getting advice first. This may spare your family a claim against your estate, and the stress and expense that goes along with such claims.

 

 

[1] Emeny v Mattsen [2024] NZHC 291.

 

 

 

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, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Wearing two hats in a family protection claim

Estate, Trusts
0

Get independent advice

In a recent case[1], the High Court found that a will administrator’s default in complying with a court order was so flagrant, it justified issuing an order for arrest of the administrator. How did this arise and, more importantly, how could it have been avoided? The will administrator was wearing two hats – one hat as a will administrator and the second hat as a beneficiary.

Dan Eckhout died in October 2017. Dan had named a South-African lawyer as executor in his will; that lawyer renounced the executorship. The court then appointed Dan’s third wife, Karen Eckhout, as administrator of Dan’s estate. Dan’s will left almost all of his estate to Karen. As well as Karen, Dan was survived by five adult children, one of whom was a stepchild. The sum of 120,000 South African rand (NZ$12,000) was left in trust for the three children of Dan’s second marriage. Michelle Connelly, the second child of Dan’s first marriage received nothing. She brought a claim under the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA) for some provision from Dan’s estate. None of Dan’s other children brought claims.

 

Two hats are a no-no

Karen was wearing two hats in the proceedings. Wearing her first hat, Karen was a court-appointed administrator with duties to all the beneficiaries; she also had an obligation to assist the court by making information available about Dan’s finances. Wearing her second hat, Karen was the beneficiary who would lose out financially if Michelle’s claim succeeded.

An administrator must be neutral in a FPA claim. Karen was definitely not neutral.

 

Dan’s assets

It is fair to say that Karen had a somewhat laissez-faire attitude in providing the court, and Michelle, with information about Dan’s finances. It was not made clear how much Dan’s estate was worth.

A family trust, of which Karen was a trustee and both Karen and all of Dan’s children were beneficiaries, was wound up and the proceeds distributed to Karen only. Karen bought property in Hamilton, sold the New Zealand family home and moved to Perth to look after her sick parents.

Some of these factors were enough to cause Michelle’s lawyers to apply for a preservation order over the estate’s assets. The application was refused even though Karen did not appear at the hearing. The court, however, required Karen to file a statutory declaration providing precise information on the nature and whereabouts of Dan’s assets.

(It is interesting to note that the lawyers who initially represented Karen in each of her capacities were allowed to withdraw from the case, apparently over issues in relation to the payment of their invoices.)

Karen did not file the statutory declaration about Dan’s finances in the time allowed. Time was extended and the scheduled FPA hearing was delayed. Eventually, two days after the extended deadline, Karen’s new lawyers filed the statutory declaration. Karen declared she had spent about $1 million, but more than $600,000 remained to meet any judgment in Michelle’s favour.

 

Michelle’s award

The financial information Karen provided was still not precise, but the court had enough information to approximate the value of Dan’s estate at $1,939,000. Karen acknowledged that Dan breached his moral duty to Michelle. Michelle said the breach warranted an award of $850,000. Karen said that was unrealistic and suggested $228,000 would be adequate. The court awarded Michelle $350,000, which it calculated represented 18% of Dan’s estate, plus costs, making a total of $449,742.

 

Failure to pay leads to order for arrest

Karen did not pay Michelle the funds from her father’s estate. Charging orders were made over the funds Karen had earlier declared she still had and would use to pay Michelle. The Australian bank in which the funds were held could only pay A$4,828. Alarmingly, this was all that remained of the previously declared $600,000+.

Frustrated with Karen’s behaviour, Michelle’s lawyers applied for an order for Karen’s arrest; Karen did not appear at the hearing of this application. A few days later Karen emailed Michelle’s lawyer saying that she would make a substantial, but not full, payment within two weeks.

The court was unimpressed by Karen’s knowing failure to comply with its judgment for which absolutely no excuse, reasonable or otherwise, was offered. It issued an order for Karen’s arrest. The order ‘lay in court’ for a month, giving Karen some wiggle room to make the required payment. If Karen failed to pay within this period, the arrest order would be acted on.

In the absence of news of Karen’s arrest (and it would have been newsworthy), we presume that she finally paid Michelle.

 

Take care if you’re wearing two hats

This case serves as a warning to anyone who may be both an administrator and a beneficiary in an estate where a family protection claim is made; we can help if you’re in this situation. You will need different lawyers to act for you in each of your different capacities and to help you properly differentiate the roles you have.

Unwittingly wearing two hats is capable of bringing trouble to your door.

[1] Connelly v Eckhout [2022] NZHC 293.

 

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, 2022.     Editor: Adrienne Olsen.       E-mail: [email protected].       Ph: 029 286 3650

Legal documents signed during lockdown

First Job, Latest news, Your Own Business
0

Best to sign again after lockdown to avoid later complications

During the Covid lockdown, special rules applied to the signing of some legal documents. Obviously it was, and is, not possible to have your signature witnessed by someone outside your bubble in Levels 3 and 4. So the law allowed signing over audio-visual link (AVL) and other similar arrangements. While these documents will remain valid in the future, it may be wise to have wills and enduring powers of attorney (EPAs) signed out of lockdown to avoid any time-consuming queries later on.

Many legal documents need to be signed in a particular way or before a particular person. For example, some documents such as affidavits must be signed in front of a JP or lawyer. As this was, and is, not possible during lockdown, special rules were put in place to enable people to sign documents such as wills, EPAs, affidavits and so on.

Continue reading

Family protection and wills

Estate, Kids, Latest news, Relationships
0

The wise and just will-maker

I need to make a will but I do not want to leave my estate to my son as I never see him. I also do not want to leave my estate to my stepchildren. What can be done?

In some parts of the world, a will-maker can leave their assets to whomever they want, whether that be their children, a distant relative or to the local cats’ home. In New Zealand, however, this is currently not the case. Continue reading

Claims on an estate

Estate, Latest news, Relationships, Retirement
0

How much can a disinherited child expect?

The Family Protection Act 1955 allows children to bring claims against the estate of a deceased parent on the basis that their parent did not adequately provide for their ‘proper maintenance and support’. Exactly what constitutes ‘proper maintenance and support’ is the subject of considerable litigation, as well as extensive commentary in the media.

Since a trio of Court of Appeal decisions in the early 2000s, a general understanding has emerged that awards under the family protection legislation can be quantified by referring to a percentage of the relevant estate. It has long been said that a financially-stable adult child might expect to receive between 10%–20% of the estate of their deceased parent, depending on a number of factors including the size of the estate and the position of others under the will or those people who are entitled to make a claim. In many cases, the 10%–20% threshold has become an informal benchmark when assessing the position of a financially-stable adult child making a claim against a modest, but not insignificant, estate. Continue reading

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

+64 7 872 0236 [email protected]