Twice, nearly five years apart, Colin Morais took to the courts claiming rights to his late sister’s Christchurch property, both times without success.
His sister Carol died in 2016 owning a residential property on Harewood Road in Bishopdale. Her will left the property firstly to the Catholic order of nuns, Sisters of Mercy; alternatively going to the Christchurch Roman Catholic Diocese if Sisters declined the gift. Elsewhere in her will, Carol stated the property was to go to her brother Colin if neither the Sisters nor the Diocese took up the gift.
The High Court was told that despite having Colin named in her will as a residuary beneficiary, Carol left a separate document with her lawyers saying she did not want Colin to inherit Harewood Road. She referred to funds Colin had previously received from both herself and their parents which he had put towards the purchase of four separate properties.
Shortly after Carol died, Colin contested her will claiming each had exchanged promises that the survivor of the two would have the right to live in the other’s home for the rest of their life. This claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act was dismissed. The High Court ruled Carol had never made such a promise.
Colin then started again, claiming the Diocese (who had taken ownership after the Sisters declined) was not using the property as specified in Carol’s will and by implication had renounced the gift. The property should go to him as residuary beneficiary, he said.
Terms of Carol’s will came under close examination in the High Court. Her bequest to the Diocese stated the property was to be ‘for the exclusive use’ of clergy. Putting tenants in the property and collecting rent did not satisfy this condition, Colin said. Justice Mander ruled clergy did enjoy ‘exclusive use’ in that rental revenue was used to support their pastoral activities and to provide funding for housing retired priests.
Morais v. Christchurch Roman Catholic Diocese – High Court (21.03.22)
22.065