Estate of Steffert

[2022] NZHC 1248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2021-485-610932

[2022] NZHC 1248

IN THE ESTATE OF BETWEEN

AND

PAUL DAVID STEFFERT (deceased)

NORMA MAY STEFFERT
Applicant

KARL STEFFERT

Respondent

Hearing:

30 May 2022

Counsel:

S J Scannell for Applicant

K Steffert (Caveator) in Person

Judgment:

31 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]                   The late Paul David Steffert (the Deceased) died intestate on 15 September 2017. The applicant was married to the Deceased although they had not lived together for many years.

[2]                   By application dated 13 December 2021, the applicant applied under s 5 of the Administration Act 1969 and rule 27.4 of the High Court Rules 2016 for a grant of letters of administration in her favour.

[3]                   The application was not granted and Registrar Moar, on 10 March 2022 advised that the reason for this was that Karl Steffert had filed a caveat against the estate. Karl Steffert is a surviving child of the Deceased.

ESTATE OF PAUL DAVID STEFFERT [2022] NZHC 1248 [31 May 2022]

[4]                   By application dated 30 March 2022, the applicant applied for the following orders:

(a)an Order Nisi that letters of administration of the estate of the Deceased be granted to her; and

(b)naming a date, time and place in the Order Nisi for showing cause against the grant.   That application was served on Karl Steffert on     5 April 2022.

[5]                   The application noted that the only asset in the estate of the Deceased was one deposit in a credit union account totalling just over $17,000.

[6]                   The application noted that the death certificate issued in Australia referred to the Deceased as having been divorced but that was incorrect. A copy of the marriage certificate recently obtained from the New Zealand Births, Deaths and Marriages office was attached and there was no notice of divorce or dissolution attached to it.

[7]                   Attached to the documentation filed was a letter from the Deceased’s niece who indicated that she signed the death certificate not knowing that the Deceased’s marriage to the applicant had not been dissolved.

[8]                   This matter was called before Palmer J on 16 May 2022. He issued a minute which noted that Karl Steffert had sought an adjournment of the call of the matter before him which had been declined.

[9]                   The minute noted that counsel for the applicant made a strong argument that Karl Steffert’s interests should be pursued by way of an application under the Family Protection Act 1955, and encouraged Karl Steffert to obtain legal advice.

[10]               The minute directed the matter to be called again in the Judge’s Chambers List (JCL) on Monday 30 May 2022 and directed Karl Steffert to file a memorandum by 5pm on Thursday 25 May 2022 stating why he opposed the orders sought and why his interests were not best protected by pursuing a Family Protection Act claim. The

solicitor for the applicant was to file a memorandum in reply no later than Thursday 25 May 2022.

[11]               Karl Steffert filed a document dated 19 May 2022 but it did not address the matters that Palmer J had directed and said it wanted to “appeal the decision”  of    16 May 2022.

[12]               Counsel for the applicant filed a memorandum dated 24 May 2022. Counsel submitted that the memorandum filed by Karl Steffert did not provide any further or valid grounds to support the maintaining of the caveat. It noted that if Karl Steffert wished to challenge the provisions for the distribution of the estate, he should make an application to the High Court under the Family Protection Act 1955. He noted that in the event of that happening, the applicant, having been put on notice, will be obliged to hold the estate funds for the prescribed period of time.

[13]               The memorandum noted that the applicant had the first priority to apply for a grant of administration pursuant to s 6(1) of the Administration Act 1969, and that Karl Steffert had not referred to any valid grounds that might justify the applicant losing that right. An order absolute was sought.

[14]               When the matter was called in the JCL yesterday, Mr Scannell appeared for the applicant and Karl Steffert appeared for himself. Both appearances were by way of VMR link. As the matter was to be argued, it was stood down until the end of the callover.

[15]               When the matter was called again, Karl Steffert was not on the VMR link. During the time that other matters were being dealt with by the Court, he had briefly appeared on the VMR link but almost immediately logged out.

[16]               Accordingly, the matter was considered on the basis of the submissions by Mr Scannell and the written documentation that had been filed.

Findings

[17]               I am satisfied that, although the Deceased and the applicant had not lived together for many years, they were not divorced and the marriage was not dissolved. Therefore, in terms of s 6(1) of the Administration Act 1969, the applicant is entitled to apply for an order granting the making of the Order Nisi absolute.

[18]               Karl Steffert has failed to comply with the directions of Palmer J and I accept the submission of Mr Scannell that there is no reason why the applicant should not be granted letters of administration. The estate is an extremely modest one and its administration needs to be resolved with the minimum of cost.

[19]               If Karl Steffert wishes to advance a claim under the Family Protection Act, he will need to do that promptly. If no claim is made within the prescribed time, then the estate will be able to be distributed.

Outcome

[20]               The applicant is granted an order making the Order Nisi for a grant of letters of administration absolute, and administration is granted to the applicant in the estate of the Deceased.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
S J Scannell & Co, Hastings