On her death in 2019, Palmerston North resident Margaret Barnard left an estate valued at $4.4 million with son Graeme aggrieved that he did not receive an equal share with his two brothers. An unequal distribution was explicable, the Court of Appeal ruled. Graeme had been treated financially more favourably than his brothers during their mother’s lifetime and she was concerned about potential claims from Graeme’s estranged wife.
Graeme sued under the Family Protection Act claiming his mother had failed in her ‘moral duty to provide proper maintenance and support.’ The court was told that on one calculation of the estate distribution Graeme was to receive about 22 per cent by value, brothers Timothy and Roger nearly forty per cent each.
When Graeme and his wife separated in 2006, Margaret helped finance their relationship property settlement, taking part share in Graeme’s home as part of the deal. This share of the home was gifted to Graeme by will on Margaret’s death. Graeme’s marriage was not formally dissolved until after Margaret’s death.
Graeme was bequeathed, as were his brothers, a one third share on sale of their mother’s Palmerston North home.
He was given tightly constrained rights to a one third share of Margaret’s share portfolio: his brothers were gifted outright a one-third share each; Graeme was given a life interest in the income only on the remaining one-third share. And on Graeme’s death, this one third share goes not to Graeme’s children but to his two brothers and their children. The court was told Graeme’s annual after-tax income on this one-third share would be about $26,000.
Graeme’s two brothers claim that their mother limited Graeme’s share bequest to only a life interest because of concerns over his business acumen and the fact Graeme and his estranged wife were still married.
Graeme contested the will, claiming its terms failed to properly recognise the care and support he provided to his mother. The Court of Appeal said Graeme’s greater support for their mother in her later years arose because he lived closest to her. There was no breach of a moral duty by Margaret to her son, the court ruled. The will provided Graeme with substantial property, capital and income, it said. Graeme’s financial position could not be described as precarious before or after his mother’s death, the court said.
Barnard v. Estate of Margaret Barnard – Court of Appeal (13.06.23)
23.089