IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV2013-485-006543 [2014] NZHC 6
IN THE ESTATE of SU-YUN CHIANG, Auckland, Buddhist Nun, deceased
AND
IN THE MATTER OF an application under Section 31 of the
Wills Act 2007
Hearing: On the papers. Counsel: D C S Morris Judgment: 9 January 2014
JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J
Solicitors:
Cook Morris Quinn, Auckland
ESTATE OF CHIANG [2014] NZHC 6 [9 January 2014]
[1] Su-Yu Chiang, the will maker, was a Buddhist nun. Without the benefit of legal assistance she prepared a will using a printed form and executed it on 13 June
2013 in the presence of two witnesses who also signed the document. The will appointed the applicant Ms Chow and another person as executors and trustees of the will.
[2] After directing payment of debts, expenses and duties out of the estate, the residuary estate was to be held by the executors and trustees. Regrettably, the will did not give any directions as to the distribution of the residuary estate. At the time of execution of the will, however, the will maker told a witness, including the applicant, that she wished her residuary estate to be distributed to Za Choeje Rinpoche, a Tibetan monk who was a resident of the United States of America but a periodic visitor to New Zealand.
[3] I am satisfied by the evidence that the omission of any direction in the will to distribute the residuary estate to Za Choeje Rinpoche was an error or oversight. It appears to me that the will maker was misled by the draft form into thinking that it would be sufficient to make a written direction leaving her residuary estate to her trustees and then to give them an oral direction as to disposition. It is apparent in these circumstances that an order should be made under s 31(2) of the Wills Act
2007 correcting the will so that the will maker’s expressed intentions may be carried out.
[4] I am further satisfied that service of this application is not required. The estate is modest; the will maker’s instructions were clear; and she had no family ties other than a sister who lives in Taiwan and has been notified of the position but who has not expressed any interest in the estate.
[5] Accordingly, I dispense with service of the application. I order that the last will of Su-Yun Chiang of Auckland dated 13 June 2013 be corrected by the addition of the following as paragraph 3 of the will; namely:
To distribute my residuary estate to Za Choeje Rinpoche of the United States of America whose address in Auckland is –
C/- Trashi Ganden Ghoepel Ling
40 Waverley Avenue
Glenfield
Auckland 0629
Telephone: 444 8886
and whose address in the United States is –
Emako Center
4111 E. Phelps Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85032Tel: +1 480 704 4169
Toogood J
- AGLC
- Estate of Chiang [2014] NZHC 6
- Case
- [2014] NZHC 6
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the omission of any direction in the will to distribute the residuary estate to Za Choeje Rinpoche was indeed an error or oversight. It appeared that Chiang had been misled by the draft form of the will, believing that it was sufficient to leave a written direction to her trustees and then provide them with an oral direction regarding the disposition of her estate. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that an order should be made under s 31(2) of the Wills Act 2007 to correct the will, thereby ensuring that Chiang's expressed intentions would be carried out.
The court determined that service of the application was not required, given the modest nature of the estate, the clarity of Chiang's instructions, and the fact that she had no family ties other than a sister who resides in Taiwan and had not expressed any interest in the estate. Consequently, the court dispensed with service of the application and ordered that the last will of Su-Yun Chiang of Auckland, dated 13 June 2013, be corrected by adding a specific paragraph directing the distribution of her residuary estate to Za Choeje Rinpoche.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.