Talijancich v Talijancich

[2021] NZHC 753

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2021-442-5

[2021] NZHC 753

UNDER

the Trusts Act 2019

IN THE MATTER

of an application relation to variation of the Deed of Trust for the Majac Trust

BETWEEN

MICHAEL ANTHONY TALIJANCICH, GRAEME PETER MALONE and M & L TRUSTEES LIMITED

Applicants

AND

LORRAINE MARISE TALIJANCICH, MICHAEL ANTHONY TALIJANCICH, JULIA JANE TALIJANCICH, CAROLINE FLEUR GIBBONS, SCOTT WILLIAM GIBBONS, ANGELA MARGARET TALIJANCICH, MILAN DANIEL TALIJANCICH and FELICITY ANNE TALIJANCICH

Respondents

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	M R C Wolff for Applicants
Judgment:	8 April 2021

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1]                 The applicants (the Trustees), Michael Talijancich (Michael), Graeme Malone, and M & L Trustees Limited are trustees of the Majac Trust (the Trust).

[2]                 The Trustees seek several variations to the Trust Deed pursuant to the Trusts Act 2019 (the Act). It is said the proposed variations relate to the management and

TALIJANCICH, MALONE and M & L TRUSTEES LIMITED v TALIJANCICH & ORS [2021] NZHC 753

[8 April 2021]

administration of the Trust, will enable the Trust to be administered more efficiently, and update the Trust to reflect modern practice and changes in the law since the Trust was settled.

[3]                 Not all the beneficiaries have given their consent to the variations. Other beneficiaries are either incapable of giving informed consent or are as yet unborn. Accordingly, the Trustees have applied under s 125 of the Act for an order waiving the requirement for unanimous consent of the beneficiaries or, alternatively, an order under s 124 approving the variations on their behalf.

The Trust

[4]                 The Trust was established in 1987 by Margaret Ann Talley (the Settlor). The Trust was settled to enhance and protect the interests of Margaret’s son, Michael, and his family. The Trust currently owns and administers substantial assets, including a shareholding in Talley’s Group Limited.

[5]                 The Trust Deed gives the Trustees discretionary powers of distribution. Discretionary distributions can be made without further qualification to Michael, his wife, his children, and their spouses for the time being and any further remoter issue of Michael. These beneficiaries are called primary discretionary beneficiaries in the materials filed in support of the application.1 There are currently 19 of them.

[6]                 There is an additional class of beneficiary referred to in the application as contingent discretionary beneficiaries.2 These beneficiaries are the other children of the Settlor and their children and remoter issue. They only qualify for a distribution if there are no longer any beneficiaries alive who might fall into the category of primary discretionary beneficiaries.3

1      There are currently eight adult and 11 minor primary beneficiaries, with the prospect of more primary beneficiaries being born in the future.

2      These too are grouped into adult, minor, and future contingent beneficiaries.

3      Given the number of primary discretionary beneficiaries, it is unlikely that contingent discretionary beneficiaries will ever take an interest in the Trust’s assets.

Proposed Variations

[7]Mr Wolff, counsel for the applicants, summarised the proposed variations as:

(a)Removing the requirement for a majority of independent professional trustees;

(b)Removing the redundant restriction preventing Michael Talley (as beneficiary) from receiving Trust money except where the majority of the Trustees are independent. At the time the Trust was settled, and because Michael Talley provided the great majority of the Trust's assets, it was necessary in order to avert adverse tax consequences to ensure he would receive no direct benefit from the Trust unless it was controlled by people independent of the beneficiaries of the Trust. Those tax laws have been repealed and the restriction is now redundant.

(c)Michael Talley and his co-trustees are desirous of his wife, mother of their four children and co-beneficiary under the Trust, Lorraine Marise Talijancich (“Lorraine Talley”), being appointed as a trustee. The Trust Deed, as currently drafted, would require a corresponding increase in independent trustees to achieve this —unnecessarily increasing the Trust’s administration costs, with no corresponding benefit for the beneficiaries. In line with modern trusts, it is submitted there need only be one independent trustee.

(d)The addition of an express provision permitting the Trustees to distribute to other trusts of which any beneficiary of the Trust is also a beneficiary. This is a standard provision in modern trust deeds, to protect beneficiaries from the uncertainties and risks arising from future events. Again, these current restrictions are due to repealed tax laws which are no longer applicable.

(e)The addition of an express provision permitting decision-making by majority vote, provided that an independent trustee is part of the majority. This approach is in line with modern trust practice and provides a more flexible and workable process.

(f)Providing for a power to remove trustees. This is a standard provision in most modern trust deeds. Currently, if removal of a trustee becomes desirable, the only option is to apply to the Court which is cumbersome, expensive, and an inefficient use of the Court’s time.

(g)Providing for Lorraine Talley to have power of appointment and removal of trustees, jointly with Michael Talley, with each continuing to hold that role as the survivor in the event of the death of either of them.

(h)Providing for a wider power of resettlement of Trust property onto other trusts. Again, this change reflects modern practice.

Legal Principles

[8]I will first outline the statutory framework relevant to this application.

[9]                 Section 122 of the Act is a statutory encapsulation of the rule in Saunders v Vautier.4 It provides that where the beneficiaries of a trust give their unanimous consent a trustee may either vary the terms of the trust or consent to a resettlement. It provides:

122     Variation or resettlement of trust by unanimous consent of beneficiaries

(1)A trustee may do either of the following on being required to do so by all of the beneficiaries who together hold all of the beneficial interest in the trust property, if the conditions set out in subsection (2) are satisfied:

(a)vary the terms of the trust:

(b)consent to the resettlement of the trust.

(2)The conditions for an action in subsection (1) are that—

(a)every beneficiary5 consents to requiring the variation or resettlement; and;

(b)the trustee receives a request to vary the terms of the trust or resettle the trust from or on behalf of each beneficiary; and

(c)if any of the beneficiaries is a beneficiary described in section 124(2), the court has made an order under section 124 approving the variation of terms or resettlement on behalf of that beneficiary; and

(d)the trustee has agreed to the proposal.

(3)In this section and in sections 124 and 125, variation includes a change to the scope or nature of the powers of the trustee.

[10]             Relevant to the present case is subs 122(2)(c). This provision governs a special class of beneficiaries described in s 124. Section 124 provides:

4      Saunders v Vautier (1841) 41 ER 282; Re Phillips New Zealand Ltd [1997] 1 NZLR 93 at 101. See too Law Commission Review of the Law of Trusts: Preferred Approach (NZLC IP31, November 2012) at 9.11.

5       “Beneficiary” is defined in s 9 of the Act as “a person who has received, or who will or may receive, a benefit under a trust (other than a trust for a permitted purpose), and includes a discretionary beneficiary.”

124Power of court to approve termination, variation, or resettlement of trust

(1)The court may, on behalf of any of the beneficiaries described in subsection (2) who has an interest in the property of a trust, approve the termination, variation, or resettlement of the trust.

(2)The beneficiaries are—

(a)a beneficiary who lacks capacity:

(b)a person who may acquire a beneficial interest at a future date or on the happening of a future event or on becoming a member of a certain class of persons:

(c)a future person who may acquire a beneficial interest.

(3)An application for an order of approval may be made by—

(a)the trustees or any one of them:

(b)any person with a beneficial interest in the trust property.

(4)On an application for an order of approval, the court must take into account each of the following factors:

(a)the nature of any person’s interest in the trust property and the effect of the proposed order on that interest:

(b)the benefit or detriment that may result to any person with an interest in the trust property if the court makes or refuses to make the proposed order:

(c)the intentions of the settlor of the trust in settling the trust, if it is practicable to ascertain those intentions.

(5)The court must not make an order of approval if its effect would be to reduce or remove any vested interest in the trust property.

(6)An order of approval binds the person on whose behalf it is made and takes effect without any further step.

[11]             In respect of a variation of a trust by the trustees under s 122, s 125 provides a court may waive the requirement that a beneficiary consent to a variation:

125Power of court to waive requirement of consent to termination, variation, or resettlement of trust

(1)The court may waive the requirement that a beneficiary consent to the termination of a trust under section 121 or the variation or resettlement of a trust under section 122.

(2)An application for an order of waiver of consent may be made by—

(a)the trustees or any one of them:

(b)any person with a beneficial interest in the trust property.

(3)On an application for an order of waiver of consent, the court must take into account each of the following factors:

(a)the nature of any person’s interest in the trust property and the effect of the proposed order on that interest:

(b)the benefit or detriment that may result to any person with an interest in the trust property if the court makes or refuses to make the proposed order:

(c)the intentions of the settlor of the trust in settling the trust, if it is practicable to ascertain those intentions.

(4)The court must not make an order of waiver of consent if its effect would be to reduce or remove any vested interest in the trust property.

(5)An order of waiver of consent binds the person on whose behalf it is made and takes effect without any further step.

[12]             The effect of s 125, then, is that where the Court orders a waiver of consent of some or all beneficiaries under s 125, the trustees can proceed with variation of the trust using the power conferred on them by s 122.

[13]             The position under s 124 is different. There it is the Court that makes the order varying the terms of the trust, rather than the trustees. This heightened level of protection arises because the beneficiaries contemplated by s 124 either lack capacity, will come into an interest on the happening of some future event, or are as yet unborn. So it is the Court in its supervisory capacity that is empowered to vary trusts affecting the interests of this special class of beneficiaries.

Discussion

[14]             Like Churchman J, I accept that the proposed variations are essentially of a technical or administrative nature, and do not affect the substantive rights or interests of any of the discretionary beneficiaries.6 Equally, the proposed variations are

6      See Michael Anthony Talijanich and Ors v Lorraine Marise Talijancich and Ors HC Nelson CIV- 2021-442-5, 4 February 2021, at [10]. The two deponents, Graeme Malone (one of the applicants and solicitor for Talleys and related family interests), and Michael Talley both believe the beneficiaries’ interests in the Trust property will be enhanced by the changes and that there are no adverse effects on the beneficiaries or their interests.

consistent with the intentions of the Settlor, which were to enhance and protect Michael’s family’s interests.7

[15]             The only issue as I see it is whether the Court is empowered to make an order under s 125 waiving the requirement in respect of all beneficiaries to consent to the proposed variations, or whether s 124 comes into play too.

[16]             Mr Wolff submits s 125 captures all beneficiaries, including contingent discretionary beneficiaries.8 He says Parliament did not intend to limit s 125 by preventing its application to beneficiaries lacking capacity and/or future contingent beneficiaries. Had it been intended that s 125 would only apply to a limited class of beneficiaries, this would have been expressly drafted (as was done with s 124) and the Court’s powers would be limited accordingly.

[17]             Further, Mr Wolff says s 122 should be read subject to the powers of the waiver contained in s 125. Otherwise, the words in s 122(2)(a) “every beneficiary consents” would render s 125 nugatory. It is logical to give all beneficiaries possessing the same contingent interests the same consideration, be it approval or waiver.

[18]            However, I think s 122(2) is clear in its effect. A trust can only be varied if every beneficiary consents to the variation, a trustee has received a request to vary the terms of the trust, and if any of the beneficiaries is a beneficiary described in section

124(2), the court has made an order under section 124 approving the variation of terms or resettlement on behalf of that beneficiary, and the trustee has agreed to the proposal.

[19]             The proviso in subs 122(2)(c), which incorporates the need for an order under s 124 in respect of beneficiaries covered by that provision, suggests s 124 is effectively a code dealing with, and protecting, the interests of beneficiaries who are not in a position to give free and informed consent to a variation. Or, put another way, s 122(2)(c) carves out s 124 beneficiaries from those who can give consent to a variation

7      Counsel highlights in particular the variations removing the “redundant restriction relating to Michael Talley being able to receive Trust money only where a majority of the Trustees are independent” and the “inability of the Trustees to distribute to other trusts of which any beneficiary of the Trust is also a beneficiary”.

8      Mr Wolff made an alternative application under s 124 too.

under s 122(1). In this way, where any trust has beneficiaries who fall within the protective provision of s 124, an application under both s 122 and 124 will be required, rather than an application for waiver under s 125.

[20]             In the present case, the minor and future primary beneficiaries as well as the contingent discretionary beneficiaries fall under s 124(2) in that they either lack capacity, they may acquire a beneficial interest at a future date or on the happening of a future event or on becoming a member of a certain class of persons, or they are a future person who may acquire a beneficial interest. The Court therefore needs to make an order under s 124 approving the variation before the Trust can be varied.

[21]             In practice little turns on this additional requirement as the tests in ss 124 (when the court is being asked to approve a variation on behalf of beneficiaries to whom that section applies) and 125 (when the court is asked to waive the requirement that a beneficiary consent to a variation) are the same. So, the Court will always be assessing:

(a)the nature of any person’s interest in the trust property and the effect of the proposed order on that interest;

(b)the benefit or detriment that may result to any person with an interest in the trust property if the court makes or refuses to make the proposed order:

(c)the intentions of the settlor of the trust in settling the trust, if it is practicable to ascertain those intentions.

[22]             I have already addressed (b) and (c).9 In terms of (a), as the s 124 beneficiaries in the present case do not have any vested interest in the Trust property, the proposed variations will not affect their interests in it.10 And given the number and ages of the discretionary beneficiaries, it is unlikely any of the contingent beneficiaries will ever be entitled to receive a discretionary distribution from the Trust.

9 At [14].

10     The Act, s 124(5).

[23]             In relation to the primary discretionary beneficiaries who lack capacity, I accept that their interest in the Trust property will not be affected by the proposed variations either.

[24]             It is also relevant to note that none of the proposed variations are opposed. They have also been accepted by the adult primary beneficiaries.

Result and orders

[25]             I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the orders as sought under ss 124 and 125 of the Act enabling variations of the Trust Deed. I attach to this judgment as Schedule 1 a tracked-change version of the approved variations for the avoidance of doubt.

[26]I make the following orders:

(a)Pursuant to s 125 of the Act, the Court waives the requirement that the adult discretionary beneficiaries of the Majac Trust Deed dated 8 June 1997 (“Trust Deed”) consent to the Proposed Variations (as defined in the Application) to the Trust Deed.

(b)Pursuant to s 124 of the Act, the Court approves the variation of the Trust Deed proposed by the Trustees (as set out in Schedule 1 of this judgment) on behalf of all beneficiaries who lack capacity (including the minor primary beneficiaries), and/or persons who may acquire a beneficial interest at a future date or on the happening of a future event or on becoming a member of a certain class of persons and/or future persons who may acquire a beneficial interest.

(c)The Trustees are permitted to meet the costs of this application from the funds of the Majac Trust.

[27]             Finally, attached as Schedule 2 to this judgment is a list of the current beneficiaries of the Trust grouped according to class.

Isac J

Solicitors:

Morrison Kent, Wellington for Applicants

Schedule 1 — approved variations

The clauses of the Majac Trust Deed which are subject to the approved variations are set out below. The approved variations to clauses are highlighted in yellow with approved deletions shown marked with “strikeout” and with additions underlined.

Clause 1

1.The approved amendments to Clause 1 of the Majac Trust Deed (Trust Deed) are as set out below.

1 UNTIL the date of distribution hereinafter provided to pay apply or appropriate the whole or any portion of the capital or income of the Trust Fund as the Trustees shall in their uncontrolled discretion think fit in discharge of such debts and obligations of the Trust Fund or of

the Trustees as may exist from time to time or for charitable purposes or in payment of the premiums payable on any policies of insurance

taken up purchased or otherwise acquired by the Trustees or for or towards the personal use support benefit maintenance education or

advancement in life of such of the following as may from time to time be living and of any one or more to the exclusion of the other or others as the Trustees in their sole and uncontrolled discretion shall

think fit, namely:-

(a)the Settler’s son Michael Anthony Talley but only whilst the

majority of the Trustees are not related by blood or marriage
 to the Settler;

(b)the wife or widow of the Settlor’s said son;

(c)the children or remoter issue of the Settlor’s said son;

(d)the husband wife widow or widower of any child grandchild of the Settlor’s said son;

(d) any trust which includes for the time being amongst its

beneficiaries (contingent or otherwise) any beneficiary of this
 Trust by virtue of subclauses (a) to (d) of this clause above;

(e)if the Settlor’s said son should be dead and there should be no issue of the Settlor’s said son living the other children and remoter issue of the Settlor.

PROVIDED HOWEVER that any moneys not in any financial year specifically appropriated under the foregoing provisions shall be added to the capital of the Trust Fund AND IT IS HEREBY

DECLARED that the Trustees may pay and apply the whole or any part of the said income or capital to the guardian guardians parent or

parents of any of the said beneficiaries for the time being under the age of twenty-one (21) years without being bound to see to the application AND IT IS FURTHER DECLARED that the Trustees shall have power without prejudice to the power of payment application and appropriation aforesaid to accumulate the whole or

any portion of the said income for any period not exceeding 80 years from the date hereof.

Clauses 6, 7 and 11

2.The approved amendments to Clauses 6, 7 and 11 of the Trust Deed are as set out below.

6ATHE statutory power of appointment and removal of new trustees hereof shall be vested in the settlor during her lifetime and after her

death jointly in Michael Anthony Talley and the said Michael
 Anthony- Talley shall have power by his-Will to fill any vacancy
 arising-after his death and after his death (subject to such power of
 appointment) by Will in his administrator or the executor or trustee
 for the time being of his Will and if at any time after his death and
 winding up of the estate there shall be no such administrator executor
 or trustee able and willing to act then and Lorraine Marise Talley
 while both are alive, and, in either of them individually when only

one is alive (“the Survivor”). Following the death of the Survivor the

power to appoint and remove Trustees shall be vested in such person
 or persons or the survivor of them as are nominated and appointed to
 exercise such powers in the Will of the Survivor, and in default or
 failure of any such nomination and appointment the power to appoint
 and remove Trustees shall be vested in the surviving or continuing
 trustees for the time being.

6B.     AT any time when, but for this clause, the power of appointment and

removal of trustees is vested in a person (whether alone or jointly)
 and that person lacks wholly or partly the competence to manage their

own affairs in relation to their property (as determined either by the

granting of a property order made under section 30 or section 31 of
 the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 or any order
 having similar effect granted under any Act enacted in substitution
 therefore or by the written opinions of a doctor and a psychologist)
 then the power of appointment and removal of Trustees shall vest as if
 that person was dead provided that if that person later becomes again
 wholly competent to manage their own affairs in relation to their own
 property the power of appointment and removal of Trustees shall re-
 vest in that person.

(a) THE said Michael Anthony Talley person or persons having power of

appointment and removal of Trustees shall in addition, without
 limitation, have power:-

(a)To appoint at any time or times an additional Trustee or Trustees of all or any of the trusts hereof whether or not occasion shall have arisen for appointment of the new Trustee or Trustees;

(b)To appoint a retiring or retired or removed Trustee or any other person at any time or times an Advisory Trustee of the trusts hereof;

(c)To appoint at any time himself herself or themselves or any of them to be a Trustee of all or any of the trusts hereof

AND if and as often as a vacancy occurs so as to reduce below-two

the number of Trustees hereof a new trustee or Trustees shall
 forthwith be appointed but the Continuing Trustee may exercise all or
 any of the powers or authorities reposed in the Trustee save the
 discretionary powers contained in-Clause 1 hereof.

7A.     The person or persons having the power of appointment and removal

of Trustees shall have the power to remove a Trustee and Trustees,
 whether original or substituted, on giving that person or those persons
 written notice to that effect.

7B      (a)       A Trustee may retire upon giving notice of that intention to

retire to the remaining Trustees and to a person who has the power of
 appointment and removal of Trustees.

(b)       The retiring Trustee shall do all things necessary to vest the

Trust Fund in the new and, or continuing Trustee/s.

7C       There shall at all times be no less than two (2) Trustees who shall

include at least one (1) Trustee who is not a beneficiary or

discretionary beneficiary of the Trust (“Independent Trustee”) and if
 and as often as a vacancy occurs or a Trustee is removed (as the case

may be so as to reduce below two (2) the number of Trustees hereof

or so there shall be no Independent Trustee (as the case may be) a
 new Trustee or Trustees shall forthwith be appointed (and if there is
 no Independent Trustee an Independent Trustee be appointed) but the
 continuing Trustee may exercise all or any of the powers or
 authorities reposed in the Trustee save the discretionary powers
 contained in Clause 1 hereof.

7D      To facilitate the vesting, transfer or assignment of the assets

comprising the Trust Fund to the Trustees for the time being,
 following the retirement of a Trustee or the exercise of the power of
 removal, every person, at any time being a Trustee irrevocably
 appoints the person having the power of removal to be their attorney
 to do all things necessary to vest transfer and assign all property
 forming the Trust Fund and no person shall be concerned to inquire of

or question the property or otherwise of such vesting, transfer or

assignment.

11       THE decisions of the Trustees on any matter arising out of or about

the Trust created by this deed shall be by a majority decision if an
 Independent Trustee voted in favour of the same, and otherwise shall
 be by unanimous decision.

Clause 9.01 of the Schedule

3.The approved amendments to Clause 9.01 of the Schedule to the Trust Deed are as set out below.

9.01 New Trusts

9.01     RESETTLEMENT OF TRUST

To transfer at any time before the date of distribution, by irrevocable

deed, all or part of the income or capital of the Trust Fund in respect
 of which any of the beneficiaries are entitled, whether absolutely or
 contingently, to the Trustees for the time being of any trust under
 which any of the beneficiaries are interested PROVIDED THAT such
 a transfer does not infringe the rule against perpetuities. This power
 may be exercised notwithstanding that the other trust may also
 contain trust powers and provisions (discretionary or otherwise) in
 favour of some other person(s) or objects(s), if the Trustees in their

absolute discretion consider the transfer to be for the benefit of the

particular beneficiary/beneficiaries. In this context:

1)         A beneficiary shall be deemed to be interested under a trust if

any capital or income is, or may become, liable to be paid,
 applied or appropriated to that beneficiary or for that
 beneficiary’s benefit;

(2)The provisions of this clause shall have effect notwithstanding

any rule of law or equity restricting the delegation of powers
 or discretions;

(3)The Trustees shall not be required to supervise the application

of transfers made pursuant to this clause;

(4)The Trustees may lend any sum to or borrow any sum from

the trustee or trustees of that other trust in respect of which a

resettlement has occurred, with or without security, at an

interest rate (if any) and on such other terms as in each respect
 the Trustees think fit.

Schedule 2 — Current beneficiaries of the Majac Trust

Beneficiary Name		Status	Trust Deed Category
Primary Discretionary Beneficiaries
Part 1: Adult primary beneficiaries
1.	Michael Anthony Talley	Adult	1(a)
2.	Lorraine Marise Talley	Adult	1(b)
3.	Julia Jane Talley	Adult	1(c)
4.	Caroline Fleur Gibbons	Adult	1(c)
5.	Scott William Gibbons	Adult	1(d)
6.	Angela Margaret Talley	Adult	1(c)
7.	Milan Daniel Talley	Adult	1(c)
8.	Felicity Anne Talley	Adult	1(d)
Part 2: Minor primary beneficiaries
9.	Lucia Illingworth	Minor	1(c)
10.	Rumi Illingworth	Minor	1(c)
11.	Paris Gibbons	Minor	1(c)
12.	Oliver Gibbons	Minor	1(c)
13.	Soffia Gibbons	Minor	1(c)
14.	Boston Talley	Minor	1(c)
15.	Maddox Talley	Minor	1(c)
16.	Hugo Talley	Minor	1(c)
17.	Jude Talley	Minor	1(c)
18.	Issac Talley	Minor	1(c)
19.	Margot Talley	Minor	1(c)

Beneficiary Name		Status	Trust Deed Category
Contingent Discretionary Beneficiaries
Part 1: Adult contingent beneficiaries
Siblings of Michael Talley
20.	Joan Pollock	Adult	1(e)
21.	Peter Talley	Adult	1(e)
22.	Nicholas Talley	Adult	1(e)
Children of Michael Talley’s siblings
23.	Richard Pollock	Adult	1(e)
24.	Nicholas Pollock	Adult	1(e)
25.	Nicola Inch	Adult	1(e)
26.	Fiona Slattery	Adult	1(e)
27.	Andrew Talley	Adult	1(e)
28.	Stacey Talley	Adult	1(e)
29.	Dajmion Talley	Adult	1(e)
30.	Regan Talley	Adult	1(e)
31.	Liam Talley	Adult	1(e)
Grandchildren of Michael Talley’s siblings
32.	Olivia Pollock	Adult	1(e)
33.	Annabel Pollock	Adult	1(e)
34.	Rosetta Inch	Adult	1(e)
35.	Christian Inch	Adult	1(e)
36.	Lucre Inch	Adult	1(e)
37.	Tom Slattery	Adult	1(e)
38.	Ruby Slattery	Adult	1(e)
Part 2: Minor contingent beneficiaries
Grandchildren of Michael Talley’s siblings
39.	Elliot Pollock	Child	1(e)

40.		Ben Pollock	Child	1(e)
41.		Angus Pollock	Child	1(e)
42.		Sam Slattery	Child	1(e)
43.		Jackson Slattery	Child	1(e)
44.		Saskia Talley	Child	1(e)
45.		Ted Talley	Child	1(e)
46.		Coco Talley	Child	1(e)
Great grandchildren of Michael Talley’s siblings
47.		Riley Talley	Child	1(e)
48.		Dylan Talley	Child	1(e)