Emotionally torn between family members, Judi Peacock left contradictory instructions as to how her assets should be distributed on death causing the High Court to rule an earlier will leaving everything to her now divorced husband was her final will.
Adrienne Peacock, known as Judi, died suddenly in 2021 aged 74. She worked as a counsellor in the Waikato. After her death, three documents written across a three year period were found on her computer each marked ‘draft’ with various formulations as to division of her assets between her sons and grandchildren on death. Also found was a subsequent document, handwritten, which dealt with only one asset, her home. At the time of her death, she also owned a second property in Tirau.
The High Court was asked to rule if any of these informal documents could be approved as a valid will. Informal documents which do not comply with strict formalities of the Wills Act can be validated provided the document clearly expresses the deceased person’s testamentary intention at time of their death.
The 2017 handwritten document stated that one of her sons, Jamahl Sean Khan, could purchase her home at a price of $150,000 with this money to go in its entirety to her other son, Saleem Paul Khan. In 2021, this property had a rating valuation of $1.46 million. Saleem is now known as Samuel Jay Steel. He has served terms of imprisonment for what the High Court was told were indecencies with children. The two brothers are estranged.
Justice Brewer ruled that none of the draft documents on her computer nor the 2017 handwritten document represented Judi Peacock’s testamentary intentions at time of her death. There was evidence that whilst alive she vacillated between how family should be treated and whilst she wished to treat her sons equally she had grown exasperated at son Samuel’s criminal behaviour. Telling her lawyers in 2019 that she did not want one of the early computer drafts finalised as a formal will was strong evidence that she had not reached any final decision, Justice Brewer ruled.
Approved as her final will was a 2005 will naming her then husband as sole beneficiary. They separated in 2013 and divorced in 2017, but remained friends. Her former husband told the court that he recognised he had no valid moral claim to his former wife’s assets. Both sons are claiming for a share of their late mother’s estate under the Family Protection Act. Justice Brewer recommended everyone get around the table and agree in an out of court settlement how her assets are distributed using as a guiding principle Judi Peacock’s long history of treating family members as equally as possible.
re Estate of Adrienne Judith Elizabeth Peacock – High Court (6.10.22)
22.175