Directions
made by a Canterbury farmer over fifty years ago proved pivotal in claims by
five grandchildren for a share in his Methven landholdings now valued at some
$12.8 million.
Wallace Wightman died in 1965.
His farms were then valued at about $208,000. He had settled in the Methven district
early in the twentieth century. Six
years before he died, Wallace gave instructions to the Public Trust as to what was
to happen to his farm on death. Given
that his children were themselves well off at this date, Wallace wanted the
farm to remain in the family and be held in trust for his grandchildren. His will stated that his eldest daughter
Clara was to decide how his estate was to be ultimately divided. Wallace was of the view that she would be in
the best position to later decide who should inherit. Clara was long-lived. She died in her 96th year and in
her will decreed that only one grandchild, Robert, should inherit Wallace’s
farm. Five grandchildren challenged this
result, having received no financial benefit from their grandfather’s estate. Not
all the grandchildren took exception to Robert taking sole ownership of the
farm; they had received benefits ranging from $3.3 million to $832,000 indirectly
from their grandmother’s estate.
Evidence was given that the
Public Trust employed a farm manager to run the farm after Wallace’s
death. The manager retired in 2003,
after 37 years in the job. Grandson
Robert managed the farm subsequently. He
became entitled to absolute ownership of the farm in 2011 after probate of
Clara’s will made public her decision in favour of Robert. Title in the farm could not be transferred to
Robert until protests by the aggrieved grandchildren were sorted out.
They sued under the Family
Protection Act, alleging grandfather Wallace had failed in his moral duty to
provide for them. Justice Whata ruled
that leaving the final decision to Clara’s unfettered discretion resulted in a
breach of moral duty: it meant the five grandchildren were denied the familial
recognition received by their siblings and cousins who did inherit.
His Honour ordered that
$150,000 be paid to each of the five grandchildren; a total of $750,000 to be
found out of the capital being inherited by Robert. It was not appropriate to remove Robert from
the farm, he said. Evidence was given
that Robert was paid an annual salary of $55,700 after assuming management of
the farm in 2003 and had purchased adjacent land out of money from the sale of
his own property and from an inheritance.
The court was told the five
grandchildren, together with all the other grand children, received $44,200
each from Clara’s estate.
Wightman
v. Public Trust – High Court (9.12.14)
15.001