Baker v Baker

[2012] NZHC 306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2012-409-000167 [2012] NZHC 306

IN THE MATTER OF     THE ESTATE OF TIMOTHY PERCY NEWTON BAKER

BETWEEN  MARIE ISOBEL BAKER Plaintiff

ANDMARIE ISOBEL BAKER Defendant

Hearing:         29 February 2012

Appearances: BJJ Stone for Plaintiff

P A Robertson for Olivia Baker, Rosemary Baker and Sarah Baker
D M Lester for Scott Baker
P J Egden for Janette Baker

Judgment:      29 February 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF CHISHOLM J

[1]      Timothy Baker died intestate in 1999.   He was survived by his wife from whom he was separated and four children including a step child.  The youngest child is still a minor and Mr Lester was appointed to represent his interests.

[2]      Letters of administration were granted to Mr Baker’s parents.  His father has since died and his mother is now the sole administratrix (and the plaintiff/defendant in this proceeding).

[3]      The Estate was distributed in 2003.  At that time it was believed the whole estate, something less than $50,000, was being distributed.  However, the deceased’s vested interest in the capital of the A P Baker Trust was overlooked.   The sum

involved is $345,878 and it is held by the plaintiff as administratrix.

BAKER V BAKER HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000167 [29 February 2012]

[4]      The family have reached agreement as to distribution of the residue of the Estate  (the  sum  of  $345,878  and  any  accretion  to  that  sum).    This  involves Janette Baker waiving her entitlement and a claim under the Family Protection Act

1955 to vary the terms of the statutory trust arising under s 78 of the Administration

Act 1969.

[5]      All  parties  are  represented.     Counsel  have  presented  a  helpful  joint memorandum this morning.   There will be orders in terms of paragraph 5 of the memorandum.  There will also be an order under s 9 of the Family Protection Act extending the time to bring the claim.   Finally, there will be an order that the reasonable solicitor/client costs of all counsel are to be met from the Estate funds. Leave is reserved to any party to bring the matter back before the Court on seven days notice if the need arises.

[6]      The parties and counsel are to be congratulated on resolving this matter so promptly.

Solicitors:

Dallison Stone, Christchurch,  [email protected]

Mortlock McCormack Law, Christchurch,  [email protected]

Dale Lester, Christchurch,  [email protected]

Peter Egden, Christchurch,  [email protected]