Blake v Baddeley - [2024] NZHC 2192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-000282

[2024] NZHC 2192

BETWEEN
LISA KATHLEEN BLAKE

Plaintiff

AND

QUINTON AINSLEY BADDELEY and WENDY LYNETTE McENTEGART as

Executors of the Estate of KATHLEEN MAVIS BADDELEY

Defendants

Hearing: 1 August 2024

Appearances:

Plaintiff in Person

First-named Defendant in Person

Judgment:

7 August 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE GARDINER

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 August 2024 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date.......................................

Copy to:

L Blake
Q Baddeley, W McEntegart

BLAKE v BADDELEY [2024] NZHC 2192 [7 August 2024]

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, Lisa Blake, applies for summary judgment of her claim for orders that the first-named defendant, Quinton Baddeley, approve payments to her in his capacity as executor of the Estate of Kathleen Baddeley (the deceased). The payments are to repay Mrs Blake for a loan she made to the deceased, her grandmother, to enable her to purchase an occupation right at a retirement village.

[2] Mr Baddeley opposes the orders being made because he considers that the deceased intended to gift $10,000 to each of her grandchildren, including Mr Baddeley’s three children. He considers that he is entitled to retain the money in the estate for these gifts.

[3] As this is an application for summary judgment, the issue to decide is whether Mr Baddeley has a defence to Mrs Blake’s claim. If he has a defence, the claim should be determined following a full trial.

Background

[4] On 6 June 2019 the deceased made her final will. The will appointed the deceased’s children, Wendy McEntegart and Mr Baddeley, as executors and trustees of the will.

[5] Warwick Ayres, solicitor, drafted the will. He has sworn an affidavit deposing that he did so on the deceased’s instructions.

[6] On the same date that the will was signed, 6 June 2019, Mrs Blake advanced a loan to the deceased to enable her to purchase an occupation right at the Aria Park Retirement Village. The loan was recorded in a Deed of Acknowledgement of Debt. The loan was interest-free. Under the Deed, both parties confirmed that they had the opportunity to seek independent legal advice.

[7]Clause 5 of the will, headed “Gift of Residue”, provides:

5.1 I give my Trustee the rest of my property as follows:

(a)To pay my debts, including the loan made to me by my granddaughter LISA BLAKE, my funeral expenses and the administration expenses of my estate.

(b)As referred to above my granddaughter made a loan to me of
$535,000.00 to enable me to purchase an occupation licence at Aria Park Retirement Village. I have signed a Direction For Payment to Aria Park Retirement Village Limited to pay the proceeds of termination of the licence to my granddaughter LISA BLAKE, towards repayment of the loan, and I direct my Trustee to provide any information to Aria Park Retirement Village Limited [to] facilitate [the] payment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Blake v Baddeley

Details

AGLC: Blake v Baddeley [2024] NZHC 2192
Case: [2024] NZHC 2192
Decision Date: 7 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Blake brought an application for summary judgment against Quinton Baddeley and Wendy McEntegart, who are executors of the estate of Kathleen Baddeley, Lisa’s grandmother. The application sought orders that Quinton Baddeley approve payments to Lisa for a loan she had made to Kathleen to enable her to purchase an occupation right at a retirement village. Quinton opposed the orders, arguing that Kathleen intended to gift $10,000 to each of her grandchildren, including Quinton’s three children, and that he is entitled to retain the money in the estate for these gifts.

The primary legal issue the Court needed to decide was whether Quinton Baddeley had a defence to Lisa Blake’s claim. The Court assessed whether the executors had an obligation to repay debts, including the loan to Lisa, before distributing the residue of the estate. The Court found that the will clearly stated that debts, including the loan to Lisa, were to be repaid before the residue was distributed to the beneficiaries. The Court held that executors must adhere to the terms of the will and cannot retain money for gifts not specified in the will. The Court determined that Quinton Baddeley did not have a defence to Lisa’s claim.

The Court granted summary judgment in Lisa’s favour. It ordered Quinton Baddeley to pay Lisa’s costs of $2,240. The Court directed that the estate be administered in accordance with the terms of Kathleen’s will, including repaying the debt to Lisa.

Orders