Platt v Taylor - [2020] NZHC 3186

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2019-442-85

[2020] NZHC 3186

UNDER The Family Protection Act 1955

IN THE MATTER OF

FAYE LESLIE TAYLOR

BETWEEN

JEANETTE ANNE PLATT

Applicant

AND

FREDERICK TAYLOR

Respondent

On the papers

Counsel:

G Praat for the Applicant

A Olney for the Respondent
J Maslin-Caradus for the Child

Judgment:

3 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF CULL J

[1] This family protection proceeding has been referred to the High Court from the Family Court for a determination, as a preliminary issue, on the interpretation of clauses 5(iv) and (v) of the will of the deceased, Ms Faye Leslie Taylor.1

[2] Following the High Court direction, Counsel for the parties agreed that the determination of the preliminary issues can be decided on the papers.

1 Platt v Taylor FAM-2019-042-000150, 1 November 2019.

PLATT v TAYLOR [2020] NZHC 3186 [3 December 2020]

Background

[3] Ms Jeanette Platt (the applicant) and the deceased Ms Taylor commenced a relationship in December 2006. In August 2013, they purchased a property together in Motueka, where they lived together with a foster child until Ms Taylor’s death.

[4] The purchase of their property was funded by the proceeds of sale of a property owned by Ms Taylor of $123,000, an advance from Ms Taylor’s father’s estate of
$104,000, and a mortgage from the ANZ bank securing a loan of $250,000. Ms Platt and Ms Taylor entered into a s 21 agreement under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 prior to purchasing the Motueka property. The agreement provided for recognition of Ms Taylor’s original contribution of $227,500 to the purchase of that property as her separate property.

[5] In 1986, Ms Taylor had obtained an insurance policy with AMP Life Insurance. By the time the property was purchased, the benefit value of the policy was $250,000. In the s 21 agreement, Ms Taylor’s life insurance policy was also identified as her separate property.

[6] In October 2016, Ms Taylor was diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer. On 20 July 2017, she executed a will (the Will) appointing the respondent, Mr Frederick Taylor, as executor and trustee, along with Mr Ross Higgs. Mr Taylor is Ms Taylor’s brother. The relevant clauses of the Will are set out in this judgment at [14]. After the payment of expenses and two specific bequests, cl 5(iv) instructs the trustees to repay, out of the proceeds of the life insurance policy, one half share of the home loan that Ms Taylor and Ms Platt had secured by a registered mortgage over the Motueka property. To the extent that the proceeds of the life insurance policy exceed a one-half share of the home loan, cl 5(v) instructs that any surplus of the life insurance proceeds is to be divided between two named charities. In cl 5(viii), the residue of the estate is to be divided among eight named beneficiaries. It is the interpretation of cls 5(iv) and
(v) that is at the heart of…

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 Platt v Taylor

Details

AGLC: Platt v Taylor [2020] NZHC 3186
Case: [2020] NZHC 3186
Decision Date: 3 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Jeanette Anne Platt, seeks further provision from the estate of the deceased, Faye Leslie Taylor, under the Family Protection Act 1955. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of clauses 5(iv) and (v) of the deceased's will, which pertain to the proceeds of her life insurance policy. The High Court of New Zealand was tasked with determining whether the proceeds of the deceased's life insurance policy existed at the time of her death and whether they were sufficiently identifiable to be applied according to the will's clauses.

The court had to address two main issues: whether the proceeds of the deceased's life insurance policy existed at the time of her death, and whether these proceeds were sufficiently identifiable within the context of the will. The court found that the insurance policy had been discharged before the deceased's death, but the proceeds of the policy were still identifiable in her bank account, constituting the majority of the funds in that account. The court concluded that the proceeds were not addeemed and were still identifiable, despite being commingled with a small sum of other funds. The court further held that the deceased's intention, as expressed in her will, was to use the proceeds to pay off her share of the home loan and to make specific gifts if there was any surplus.

The court determined that the $251,129.32 of the $254,358.26 funds held in the deceased's bank account at the time of her death were the proceeds of her life insurance policy and should be applied according to clauses 5(iv) and (v) of her will. The court emphasised the importance of giving effect to the deceased's clear intentions as expressed in her will.

Orders