• Expertise
    • Business Ownership
    • High Net Worth
    • Relationship Property
    • Care of Children
    • Court Representation
    • Disputed Wills
  • Mediation
    • Collaborative Practice
  • Consultation & Fees
  • Advice
  • About
    • Significant Cases
  • Contact
  • 09 309 4647
Jeremy Sutton – Divorce Lawyer
  • Separation
    • Relationship Property
    • Care of Children
    • Business Ownership
    • High Net Worth
    • Family Violence
  • Court Representation
  • Consultation & Fees
    • Consultation & Fees
    • Mediation
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • About
    • Community
    • Significant Cases
  • Media
    • Media
    • Advice
  • (09) 309 4647
  • Home
  • Advice
  • Relationship Property
  • Can you challenge an unfair will?

Can you challenge an unfair will?

Request a consultation
  • Categories
  • Business Ownership 10
  • Child Custody 60
  • Child Support 22
  • Contracting Out Agreements/Prenups 20
  • Coronavirus 25
  • Divorce 107
  • Economic Disparity 7
  • Family Violence 4
  • Human Rights 7
  • International Divorce Law 15
  • Parenting Arrangements 53
  • Relationship Property 144
  • Separation 74
  • Significant Cases 15
  • Spousal Maintenance 12
  • Trusts 19
  • Wills 24
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • November 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015

 

The High Court recently heard an appeal regarding an application under section 4 of the Family Protection Act 1955 made by a daughter regarding her father’s estate. The Respondent was the deceased’s widow, they had been in a relationship for 2 years before marrying a few days prior to the deceased passing away.

Background

The deceased had 3 adult children from an earlier marriage. After an acrimonious divorce from their mother, the relationship between the deceased and the applicant daughter suffered. The deceased moved to New Zealand with a new partner. Their relationship was rekindled in 2013, after her children were born, and the applicant began visiting her father in New Zealand once or twice a year.

The deceased’s partner passed away in 2015.  Soon after, the deceased met the respondent widow. They moved in together in early 2016 and entered into a relationship property agreement. The agreement acknowledged that the respondent widow had given up a lease to move in with the deceased.

In the 2 years prior to his death the deceased was unwell and effectively needed 24/7 care which was provided by the respondent widow. She also provided companionship and there was a physical relationship.

In January 2017, the applicant daughter visited her father in New Zealand. As she was leaving, the deceased took issue with something the applicant had said to the respondent about her parents’ separation. This was a catalyst for the deceased changing his Will so the applicant received a significantly smaller portion of the estate.

The value of the estate was around 3.2 million comprising of an apartment, bank accounts and managed funds and chattels including a Mercedes and valuable Rolex watch. There was a Will which was executed a few days before the deceased passed away which bequeathed the apartment and other personal and household effects including the Mercedes to the respondent widow. There was no issue about his testamentary capacity. The respondent widow also received an additional $500,000 pursuant to a section 21 agreement.

The applicant daughter received personal chattels worth around $10,000 and the Rolex watch worth around $51,000. The residue of the estate amounting to around $2.1million was also left equally to her two children, the deceased’s grandchildren who were 18 and 15. The other 2 daughters received nothing from the estate and did not bring an application.

The applicant daughter was upset to not receive more from the estate. Particularly as there had been an earlier 2016 Will which left the majority to her

Family Court

It was agreed by the parties that there had been a breach of the deceased’s moral duty. The Family Court Judge decided that the further provision ought to be made in a way which interfered as little as possible with the deceased’s intention and therefore left the provision to widow intact and ordered the residue to be spilt into thirds, 1/3 to the applicant widow and the remaining 2/3 to her daughters. This increased the applicant’s share from $10,000 to $700,000.

High Court appeal

The applicant daughter appealed on the grounds that:

  1. She should not have been awarded an amount equal to that of her children.
  2. That the Family Court Judge erred in his understanding that the award amounted to 23% of the estate because the apartment was worth more which meant she was only receiving 19%.
  3. The award was insufficient for her to purchase a debt free home.
  4. That insufficient weight was put on the previous Will and relationship property agreement.
  5. That a life interest on the apartment to the widow was sufficient to meet the moral duty to the widow.

The core of the arguments was that the award was unfair when compared to what the widow and grandchildren received. Neither the grandchildren nor the widow cross appealed. The grandchildren’s position was that the Family Court decision should remain.

High Court decision

The High Court Judgment noted that it is not for the beneficiaries of the estate to justify the bequests made to them. So, long as the award made by the Family Court was sufficient to remedy the deceased’s breach of moral duty then the deceased’s wishes ought not to be disturbed.

The High Court criticised the basis of the applicant’s argument that the award was unfair and that it valued her life as the daughter of the deceased as less than the widow’s 25 months with him. The High Court noted general notions of “fairness” were irrelevant, even if the Court does not agree with what the testator has done.

The Family Court decision was not an assessment or judgment of the comparative importance of the different relationships. Rather the award was that the Judge considered to be the least interference with the deceased intentions and what was sufficient to remedy the moral breach and was therefore appropriate.

Takeaways

Perceived unfairness is not a ground to disrupt testamentary capacity. The Court will only disrupt the Will enough to remedy the deceased’s breach of moral duty. It is not the Court’s place to provide an award that would reflect the value of the applicant in the deceased’s life.

« Previous Next »

Related Posts

The Ex-Files: Jeremy Sutton on protecting bank of your Mum and Dad

May 23, 2022

Q: My husband and I are helping our son purchase his first home. He works very hard and has saved some money, but with the current house prices has struggled to save enough to pay the...Read More

TODAY FM: Lawyer Jeremy Sutton on a 40-year low NZ divorce rate

May 6, 2022

Divorce rates fell to their lowest annual number last year in nearly more than four decades. Why? Check out Jeremy's interview on TODAY FM with Tova O'Brien, Mark Dye and Carly...Read More

The Ex-Files: Jeremy Sutton on the grounds for objecting to a marriage

May 2, 2022

Q. My best friend is about to get married or have a civil union to someone they met on the dating app Bumble. I have a number of reasons why I think the marriage should not go...Read More

The Ex-Files: Jeremy Sutton on setting up a ‘pre-nup’ during your marriage

March 29, 2022

Q. My partner and I are going through a difficult period in our relationship. He seems to work every day on his construction business. Although he has multiple projects, I know it's...Read More

Contact Me

Email: js@bastionchambers.co.nz
LinkedIn: Jeremy Sutton
vCard: Download

Address

Jeremy Sutton Barrister
Bastion Chambers
Level 3, 70 Shortland Street
Auckland 1010

or Point Chevalier by arrangement

Parking

Shortland Street

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for my bi-monthly newsletter to receive expert advice, news and views on Family Law.

© Jeremy Sutton 2022 | Terms of Engagement | Privacy Policy

Jeremy Sutton is a member of Bastion Chambers

 

Request a Consultation

[mogul_xero_xpmleadform]

Jeremy Sutton and his staff are fully vaccinated against COVID-19. When the restrictions allow us to meet, we will require proof of vaccination prior to the meeting. All other meetings will be conducted via Zoom.Click here to learn more.