Estate of BJE

[2022] NZHC 1268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2022-441-21

[2022] NZHC 1268

IN THE ESTATE OF	BJE (deceased)
AND	BRA and GLL Applicants

Hearing:	31 May 2022
Counsel:	D J O’Connor for Applicants
Judgment:	1 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J [REDACTED]

[1]                   The applicants were appointed executrices in the estate of the late BJE. GLL was BJE’s sister and BRA is GLL’s daughter, and was BJE’s niece.

[2]                   There were two beneficiaries under the Will. The deceased’s daughter, CJL and CJL’s daughter, MA, who is 10 years old.

[3]                   BJE’s wish was for her house to be sold shortly after her death. However, CJL moved into the house shortly before BJE passed away and has refused to vacate the house. CJL apparently has issues with drug use, has a patched gang member living at the house, and there have been several arrests at the house.

[4]CJL has also threatened GLL and BRA.

ESTATE OF BJL [2022] NZHC 1268 [1 June 2022]

[5]                   Probate was granted to GLL and BRA on 12 October 2021 and they have commenced administering the estate. They no longer wish to be executrices as a result of CJL’s behaviour towards them.

[6]                   Because they had commenced administering the estate, an order of the Court is required to remove and replace them.

[7]                   Stephen Peter Lunn (Stephen) is an experienced law practitioner with expertise in the administration of trusts and estates. He has filed an affidavit indicating that he is fully aware of the issues involved in this estate and is willing to be appointed sole executor.

[8]                   The plaintiffs’ application to be released as executrices and replaced by Stephen has been served on CJL. No steps have been taken by her.

Analysis

[9]                   The power to remove an administrator and appoint another person in the place of the removed administrator comes from s 21 of the Administration Act. The Court can exercise its powers under that section when it is expedient to do so.1 The Court has held that the concept of expedience imports considerations of suitability, practicality, and efficiency.2

[10]               I am satisfied that it is expedient that the applicants do not have to endure the stress created by attempting to administer the estate given CJL’s behaviour. I am also satisfied that Stephen has the appropriate expertise to be appointed as sole executor. The orders sought are therefore suitable, practical, and efficient.

1      See Bolton v Bolton [2021] NZHC 2692 at [12]-[16].

2      See Crick v McIlraith [2012] NZHC 1290.

Outcome

[11]               I therefore grant the application removing the applicants as executrices and appointing Stephen as the sole executor in the estate.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Heaphy & Co, Hastings for Applicants