Tumu v Snowball

[2025] NZHC 1843

JUDGMENT REISSUED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-000591

[2025] NZHC 1843

IN THE MATTER OF

Section 14 of the Wills Act 2007

IN THE MATTER OF

The estate of HELEN MOEROA SNOWBALL of Auckland, Retired (Deceased)

BETWEEN

HELEN PRISCILLA TUMU

First Applicant

ETHAN SHIN
Second Applicant

AND

NOOTAI RAEA SNOWBALL

First Respondent

[THE CHILD]

Second Respondent

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	E Shin for Applicants
Judgment:	7 July 2025
Reissued:	25 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

[1]                 The applicants apply for an order that a draft will of Helen Snowball be declared a valid will under s 14 of the Wills Act 2007 (the Act).

HELEN PRISCILLA TUMU v NOOTAI RAEA SNOWBALL [2025] NZHC 1843 [7 July 2025]

Background

[2]                 Ms  Snowball  died  on  7  December  2023.  She  had  one  adult  son,  Nootai Snowball. She had no husband or de facto partner.

[3]                 The applicants are the executors and trustees named  in  the  draft  will.  Ethan Shin is one of the applicants and is the solicitor who drafted the unexecuted will. The other applicant is Ms Snowball’s adult niece, Helen Tumu, who lived with Ms Snowball since the age of 14.   Ms Tumu’s  daughter, [the child], was born on   20 January 2013. [The child] and Ms Snowball had a very close relationship.

[4]                 In the draft will, Ms Snowball gifts her son $20,000 to use towards the purchase of a car and leaves the residue of her estate to [the child] on attaining the age of 25. There is no prior will, which means if the application is unsuccessful there will be an intestacy.

[5]                 The applicants have filed a joint affidavit dated 17 September 2024 attaching the draft will and separate affidavits dated 6 December 2024. Following concerns raised by me in a minute of 9 December 2024, on 18 June 2025 I received a further affidavit from Mr Shin and a joint affidavit of the applicants setting out the approximate gross value of the estate. The main asset of the estate is Ms Snowball’s half-share in 18 Prangley Avenue, Mangere (the property), which has a CV of

$1,230,000 (a half-share being $615,000). The property has a mortgage of approximately $25,000. Other assets include a life insurance policy (approximate value $90,000), a car (approximate value $2,000 to $4,500), and there are liabilities of approximately $12,000.

[6]                 The proceedings were served on Ms Snowball’s son on 31 October 2024 and he has taken no formal steps in the proceeding.

Ms Tumu’s evidence

[7]                 Ms Tumu states that she cared for Ms Snowball and assisted her with household expenses and rent throughout the years that she lived with her. During those years, her son Nootai would visit unannounced every two or three years demanding

financial assistance to support his ongoing drug habit. Every visit would result in heated arguments between Ms Snowball and Nootai, with Nootai being escorted off the property by the police.

[8]                 In February 2023, Ms Snowball sold the property where they were living,     4 Bingara Place, Favona, and Ms Snowball and Ms Tumu jointly purchased the property at 18 Prangley Avenue, Mangere. They  had  discussed  relocating  since [the child] was born. Ms Snowball said she was getting older and wanted to ensure that Ms Tumu and [the child] were going to be fine and had a home to call their own if anything were to happen to her.

[9]                 For this purpose, Mr Shin took Ms Snowball’s testamentary wishes and drafted a will for her. However, she did not sign the will when Mr Shin came to their property because she wanted to have another think about the terms of her will. She subsequently became ill, was hospitalised and did not have the energy to sign her will before she passed away.

[10]             Since Ms Snowball’s passing, Ms Tumu says she has had multiple discussions about her estate with Nootai. He is aware of the drafted unexecuted will and of the

$20,000 left to him in the draft will. He has told her that he will not obtain legal representation and he will not contest Ms Snowball’s last wishes given their estrangement. He is also aware of the special relationship Ms Snowball had with  [the child] and understands why Ms Snowball wanted to ensure [the child] was cared for and had the best possible start in life.

[11]             Ms Tumu has also discussed the draft will with [the child] who, whilst still a minor, understands the effect of Ms Snowball leaving her estate to her. Ms Tumu confirms that as [the child’s] legal guardian she also has no objections about the draft will being validated.

[12]             Ms Tumu states that she works for ANZ Bank and is very good with assisting clients with their money. She is confident that she and Mr Shin as executors will act faithfully to fulfil Ms Snowball’s wishes to preserve and protect the estate until    [the child] comes of age, and that she will guide and support [the child] to ensure that

she has the maturity to prudently manage the estate funds that she will ultimately receive.

Mr Shin’s evidence

[13]             Mr Shin sates that in January 2023, while employed as a solicitor at a previous firm, he took Ms Snowball’s instructions in relation to the sale of 4 Bingara Place and the purchase of the property. Ms Snowball instructed that the property should be purchased as tenants in common in equal shares despite Ms Snowball providing most of the funds for the purchase, as Ms Tumu would be responsible for paying the mortgage and other outgoings. On Mr Shin’s advice, they entered into a property sharing agreement to record this arrangement. It was also important to Ms Shin that the purchase was as tenants in common to ensure her share would pass directly to [the child’s] without any possibility of it being subject to a relationship property claim by any future partner of Ms Tumu. Ms Snowball was adamant that her estate should all go to [the child].

[14]             Mr Shin prepared the draft will based on the instructions taken at meetings with Ms Snowball in January and February 2023 and subsequent phone calls. Ms Snowball remained adamant that her estate should all go to her great niece, [the child]. The reason for this was that Nootai had been estranged for many years and Ms Snowball did not know what he was doing or where he lived. He would come to Ms Snowball’s property may be once or twice a year to demand money. Ms Snowball said that in the past she had operated a taxi company and Nootai had stolen one of the taxis and sold it. She also said that Nootai only came to her home to demand money to fund his drug habit.

[15]             Mr Shin subsequently left his firm but remained instructed by Ms Snowball. He met with her again in March 2023 and presented her with the draft of the will. He advised Ms Snowball that she should still leave a gift to her son in her will because it would reduce the chances of a claim on her estate. She accepted this advice and said that she would leave him $20,000 towards the purchase of a car, as she had told him she would buy him a car many years ago. The draft will was therefore amended to leave Nootai $20,000 in accordance with these instructions.

[16]             When Mr Shin went to Ms Snowball’s home in May 2023 to witness her will, she said that $20,000 is a lot of money and she would like to have some time to think about the amount, as she previously did not wish to leave Nootai anything. She did not sign her will that day.

[17]             The deceased then became very ill and was hospitalised for an extended period. After she was discharged from hospital, she became very tired and slept all day. She did not wish to think about her estate planning despite repeated communication to encourage her to sign her will. She subsequently passed away without signing her will.

Law

[18]             This Court has the power to validate a document that appears to be a will, does not comply with s 11 of the Act and came into existence in or out of New Zealand, if it is satisfied that the document expresses the deceased person’s testamentary intentions.1

[19]             In making its determination as to whether to validate the document, the Court may consider the document, evidence regarding the signing and witnessing of the document, evidence about the deceased person’s testamentary intentions, and evidence of statements made by the deceased person.2

Decision

[20]             I am satisfied that the draft will is a document that appears to be a will and does not comply with s 11 of the Act, as it was not signed and witnessed as required. I am satisfied that the draft will came into existence in New Zealand.

[21]             I am satisfied on the combined evidence of Mr Shin and Ms Tumu that the draft will expresses Ms Snowball’s testamentary intentions, aside from the provision for Nootai. It is clear that Ms Snowball had a very close relationship with Ms Tumu, who lived with her from the age of 14, and that she developed a very close relationship with

1      Wills Act 2007, s 14(1) and (2).

2      Section 14(3).

[the child]. Conversely, she had a troubled relationship with her only child, Nootai, whom it appears struggled  with  drug  addiction  and  had  been  estranged  from  Ms Snowball for some time.

[22]             Ms Snowball gave clear instructions to Mr Shin that she wanted to leave her estate (less any provision for Nootai) to [the child] (upon attaining the age of 25 years) to ensure that [the child] and Ms Tumu were going to be fine and had a home to call their own.

[23]             I  am  satisfied  from  the  evidence  of  Mr  Shin  that  the  only  issue  in   Ms Snowball’s mind was whether the $20,000 gift to her estranged son, Nootai, was too generous rather than  any  concern  about  leaving  her  estate  to  [the  child].  Ms Snowball may have left a smaller gift for Nootai, in which case the difference would have become part of the residue of the estate and been inherited by [the child]. With respect to [the child], I can only be satisfied that Ms Snowball intended to leave her the entire estate less $20,000.

[24]             I am also satisfied that Ms Snowball’s testamentary intentions did not change and the only reason she did not finalise her will was because she became very ill and was hospitalised for an extended period. And after discharge, she became very tired and did not wish to think about the finalisation of her will.

[25]             I am satisfied that Nootai has been properly notified of this application and has decided to take no steps to oppose the validation of his mother’s will.

[26]             In all these circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to grant the application for  validation  of  the  draft  will  save  for  the  $20,000  gift  to  Nootai.3  Given   Ms Snowball’s uncertainty about the quantum of the gift, it is to be excluded from the validation and will be subject to intestacy under s 77 of the Administration Act 1969. Although this will result in Nootai receiving the full $20,000 gift, potentially undermining Ms Snowball’s concern about its generosity, Ms Snowball’s intentions

3      In Re Cockroft [2021] NZHC 191 a document partially dealing with the deceased’s estate was declared valid under s 14 with the remainder of the estate subject to intestacy.

will be undermined to a far greater extent if the remainder of the draft will is not validated.

[27]             I therefore make an order validating the draft will annexed as Exhibit A to the joint affidavit of the applicants dated 17 September 2024 save for  the  gift  to  Nootai Snowball in the sum of $20,000.

La Hood J

Solicitors:
Shortall Lawyers, Auckland for Applicants