Estate of Oldridge

[2020] NZHC 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-362

[2020] NZHC 2020

UNDER

the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of LINDA MARIE OLDRIDGE

BETWEEN

MARGARET EVELYN PRICE AND CAROL-ANNE ROBERTS

Applicants

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	R J Loversidge for Applicants
Judgment:	10 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 August 2020 at 4.00 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: 10 August 2020

[1]    This is an application by Margaret Evelyn Price and Carol-Anne Roberts for an  order  that  a  document   be   declared   a   valid   will   of   the   deceased,   Linda Marie Oldridge.

ESTATE OF LINDA MARIE OLDRIDGE [2020] NZHC 2020 [10 August 2020]

[2]    Ms Oldridge had an existing will dated 6 April 2006 (the 2006 will) in which she left her estate to her sister, Patricia Helen Baker or, in the event that her sister did not survive her, to her sister’s two children.

[3]    In late 2019, Ms Oldridge visited the offices of Corcoran French, and obtained a copy of their “Preliminary Questionnaire – Last Will and Testament”. This is a document intended as a record of a client’s instructions for the purpose of drafting a will. However, the applicants say that Ms Oldridge completed the preliminary questionnaire believing it was a will. On 20 November 2019, she then signed the document in front of Margaret Evelyn Price, one of the two proposed executors named in the document.

[4]    Ms Price, and the other proposed executor, Carol-Anne Roberts, are the parties making this application. Ms Price and Ms Roberts say that the deceased discussed her testamentary intentions with them on several occasions and they believe that the wishes set out in the document are the deceased’s last known wishes.

[5]    As already noted, the document is headed “Preliminary Questionnaire – Last Will and Testament”. However, Ms Oldridge appears to have deleted the words “Preliminary Questionnaire”, to leave it headed “Last Will and Testament”. She then sets out the following details:

(a)the names of the two persons she wished to be her executors and trustees, these are Ms Price and Ms Roberts;

(b)her assets which comprise a motor vehicle, funds in an ANZ bank account;

(c)she bequest two specific gifts to her niece and nephew;

(d)she then leaves her estate to be divided as follows:

(i)$5,000 to St John, Kaiapoi; and

(ii)$5,000 to “Cat and Dog Associations”.

(e)the balance of her estate is specified to be shared between the named beneficiaries, being her niece and nephew, and a great-nephew.

[6]    She also notes in the questionnaire that she is omitting her sister from the will, saying she “may die before me” and that she did not want any of her “provisions” going to the church.

[7]    She  has  then  signed  the  document  and  had  Ms  Price  witness  it  on     20 November 2019.

Discussion

[8]    The two persons proposed to be the deceased’s executors in the document are the applicants who seek a declaration that this document is a valid will.

[9]    A copy of the consent of the deceased’s sister to the application, is annexed to the affidavit of Ms Price and Ms Roberts, as exhibit D. As she is the only person who would have benefited from the 2006 will, I am satisfied she is the only person who has an interest in the application. I therefore determine that the application can proceed without notice to any other party.

[10]   I have jurisdiction under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 to declare a document to be a valid will, when that document:

(a)appears to be a will; and

(b)does not comply with s 11; and

(c)came into existence in or out of New Zealand.

[11]   I accept that as the deceased deleted the words “preliminary questionnaire” and left the words “last will and testament” as the heading to the document, and as she had Ms Price witness it, that the document appears to be a will which came into existence in New Zealand.

[12]   It does not comply with s 11 of the Wills Act because, while she has signed it and she has had one person witness it, the Wills Act requires at least two witnesses be together in the will maker’s presence when the will maker signs the document, and that each sign the document in the will maker’s presence.1

[13]As the requirements of s 14(1) are met, I now turn to s 14(2). That states that:

The High Court may make an order declaring the document valid, if it is satisfied that the document expresses the deceased person’s testamentary intentions.

[14]   In that regard, the content of the document, and the evidence of Ms Price and Ms Roberts, when taken together, satisfy me that the document expresses the deceased’s testamentary intentions. The document refers to the beneficiaries who are identified in the 2006 will. It expresses a reason for not benefiting her sister, but rather her sister’s two children and her great-nephew. She also discussed her testamentary intentions with Ms Price and Ms Roberts and they are both satisfied that the wishes set out in the document are her last known wishes.

[15]   For these reasons, I am satisfied that the conditions in s 14 are met and I make the following order:

(a)that the document dated 20 November 2019, a copy of which is exhibited to the affidavit of Margaret Evelyn Price and Carol-Anne Roberts filed in support of the application is hereby declared to be a valid will of the deceased.

Solicitors:
Pegasus Bay Law Ltd, Christchurch

1      Wills Act 2007, s 11(4).