Shields v Haywood - [2017] NZHC 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-828 [2017] NZHC 261

BETWEEN
RUVE ADELE SHIELDS

Plaintiff

AND

CARLA HAYWARD First Defendant

CORBAN REVELL Second Defendant

Hearing: 14-17 February 2017

Appearances:

D A Wood for Plaintiff
First Defendant in person
M C Smith and M H A Ho for Second Defendant

Judgment:

24 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by me on 24 February 2017 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

SHIELDS v HAYWARD [2017] NZHC 261 [24 February 2017]

INDEX

Undue influence [7] Legal principles [7] The allegation in this case [10] Carla's involvement in the transactions [14] Mrs Shields' cognitive disorder [22] Carla’s explanations [26] Were Sarah and Mrs Shields estranged during the period leading up to July
2012? [28] The explanations given by Mrs Shields to Mr Allen [43] Conclusion [49]

Unconscionable conduct [56] Legal principles [56] The claim [58] Did Mrs Shields suffer from a disadvantage? [59] Did Carla engage in unconscionable conduct? [61]

The claim against Corban Revell [72] Failure to ensure that Mrs Shields was free from undue influence by Carla [74] Failure to ensure that Mrs Shields fully understood the nature and effect of the transactions she undertook on 9 July 2012 [75]

Result [95]

Costs [96]

[1] Mrs Ruvé Shields is 88 years of age. She suffers from a cognitive disorder in the nature of dementia, and is currently residing in a rest home.

[2] For many years up until 2014 Mrs Shields lived on a 4.4 hectare property near Kumeu in West Auckland (the property). On 9 July 2012, Mrs Shields instructed Mr Thomas Allen of the West Auckland law firm Corban Revell to form a trust called the Martha’s Vineyard Trust. Mrs Shields then transferred the property to that trust, the trustees of which were herself and her youngest daughter Carla. The discretionary and final beneficiaries of the trust were Mrs Shields, Carla and Carla’s children. The Deed of Trust did not include as beneficiaries Mrs Shields’ eldest daughter Sarah and her children. Mrs Shields also executed a new will. This provided for Carla to receive 70 per cent of her residuary estate and Sarah to receive the remaining 30 per cent.

[3] Mrs Shields appears to have changed her mind in or about August 2013. At that time Sarah became aware that her mother had done something with her property and she also believed Carla had been withdrawing money from her mother’s bank accounts. Sarah and her mother visited Corban Revell on 16 August 2013 and Sarah discovered that her mother had transferred the property to the trust the previous year. Mrs Shields had no memory of having undertaken that step. Sarah and Mrs Shields then sought advice from another firm of solicitors and ultimately instructed them to issue the present proceeding.

[4] In this proceeding Mrs Shields seeks to have the transfer of the property to the trust set aside.1 She alleges it was…

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 Shields v Haywood

Details

AGLC: Shields v Haywood [2017] NZHC 261
Case: [2017] NZHC 261
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shields v Haywood, Ruvé Adele Shields sought to have a transfer of property to a trust set aside on the basis of undue influence and unconscionable conduct. The transfer had occurred in July 2012, and the trust was called the Martha’s Vineyard Trust. The trustees of the trust were Mrs Shields and her youngest daughter Carla, and the beneficiaries were Mrs Shields, Carla and Carla’s children. The trust did not include as beneficiaries Mrs Shields’ eldest daughter Sarah and her children. Mrs Shields also executed a new will that provided for Carla to receive 70 per cent of her residuary estate and Sarah to receive the remaining 30 per cent. The claim against Carla failed as the court found that Mrs Shields genuinely believed that Carla needed and wanted her support whilst Sarah did not. The claim against Corban Revell, the law firm that prepared the trust and will, also failed as the court found that the law firm had exercised proper skill and competence and that Mrs Shields had fully understood the nature and effect of the transactions.

Orders