Melva
Mahon died a widow aged 88 leaving a net estate worth more than $5.3 million,
the fruits of a family business operating amusement rides at A&P shows up
and down the country. The High Court
dismissed claims from members of one branch of her family that they had been
short-changed, not receiving half the value of her estate.
The High Court was told Melva Mahon and
her husband had two children: Bill and John.
Bill died tragically in 2004, killed in an accident while servicing one of
their amusement rides at an Easter Show.
Keeping the show on the road fell primarily on John, with help from both
his son and one of Bill’s sons. Melva’s
will on her death divided the bulk of her estate 60% to John and his family,
40% to Bill’s family. Bill’s descendants
sued, claiming they were entitled to a 50% share.
They first argued Melva had been unduly
influenced by John. She signed no fewer
than 12 wills between 1972 and 2008. It
was only in the last three wills between 2004 and 2008, after both her husband
and son Bill had died, that the 60:40 disparity appeared. Bill’s family said this disparity arose
because of Melva’s deteriorating health and the influence John held over
her. Justice MacKenzie dismissed the
claim of undue influence. The evidence
conveyed a clear picture of a strong-minded woman not easily susceptible to
persuasion against her better judgment, he said. Indications were that she favoured John
because of her concerns about the continuation of the family business and the
burden she perceived as falling on John.
Bill’s family also argued that a farm at
Whatawhata and two sections on Great South Road in Ngaruawahia were not part of
Melva’s estate; she held them on trust in equal shares for each branch of the
family. Evidence was given that the properties
were transferred to Melva by her husband in the 1980s, ostensibly to keep them
safe from Inland Revenue investigations into tax fraud. Bill’s family said there was an unstated
intention that the transfers would be unwound after any tax investigation with
Bill and John ultimately to get half each.
Justice MacKenzie said there was no evidence of a “common intention”
that the properties were held on trust with Bill and John the ultimate
beneficiaries. Neither of them made any
contribution to the properties. If there
were any “common intention”, he said, it would most likely be for Melva to
transfer the properties back to her husband.
Finally, Bill’s family made a claim for a
further contribution from Melva’s estate under the Family Protection Act. This allows a claim where a family member
requires maintenance and support.
Dismissing their claim, Justice MacKenzie said the Act is not designed
to rewrite a will just to redress a perceived inequality in distributions. He pointed out that each branch of the family
had shared equally in taking control of the family business, separate from
Melva’s estate.
Mahon
v. Mahon – High Court (4.08.15)
15.101