A desperate phone call by Cedric Mathers stating he was being ‘cleaned out’ by his long-term de facto partner proved the trigger for successful court action later invalidating his will on grounds of both her undue influence and his advancing dementia.
Mr Mathers and Gloria Kingsford were in a de facto relationship for 23 years. They never lived together; keeping separate residences, keeping their finances separate, and one year into their relationship signing a relationship property ‘contracting-out’ agreement stating their assets were to remain separate property. They had both been twice married previously.
On his death in 2022 at age 81, validity of Mr Mather’s final will, signed fifteen months previously, was challenged.
The High Court was told Mr Mathers made several phone calls to his long-time friend Curly Rosborough in some distress around the time he signed the disputed 2020 will. Mr Rosborough was so concerned about the calls that he took handwritten notes of their conversations, later having these notes typed up and forwarded to Mr Mather’s three daughters.
Mr Mather variously complained that Ms Kingsford had ‘stripped [him]of all his possessions;’ ‘cleaned him out;’ and ‘emptied out everything to her side of the fence.’
Evidence was given that in the months prior to his signing the 2020 will, Mr Mathers cognitive abilities were questioned in medical assessments needed for renewal of his driver’s licence. His Waihi general practitioner required further tests. NZ Transport Agency revoked his licence. It was reinstated after he passed a practical driving test.
Justice O’Gorman ruled the medical evidence showed Mr Mather lacked sufficient testamentary capacity to sign his 2020 will.
She further ruled Ms Kingsford exercised undue influence in having the will drafted and signed.
Ms Kingsford took instructions for his new will to her accounting advisers. They were offering a will preparation service. Justice O’Gorman said it was not clear whether Mr Mather personally had drafted these instructions.
The new will was prepared and signed within a day.
The accounting firm did not know of Mr Mather’s personal or financial circumstances, or terms of any prior wills, or existence of the earlier relationship property agreement. Mr Mather was steered away from the law firm he normally used, a law firm with knowledge of all this background.
Ms Kingsford said the accounting firm was used because it was offering a free will drafting service. Mr Mather’s usual law firm was offering a similar promotion at the same time, Justice O’Gorman pointed out.
Terms of the invalidated 2020 will bequeathed the residue of his estate to Ms Kingsford with his rural property on Golden Valley Road, near Waihi, to be gifted to his three daughters.
A prior will, which became effective on cancellation of the 2020 will, leaves his estate to two of his three daughters. The other daughter is estranged from her father. She has no wish to share in her late father’s estate, the court was told.
Ms Kingsford was described as holding assets in her own name in excess of six million dollars at the time the disputed will was signed; around three times the then value of Mr Mather’s assets.
Who is to take ownership of Mr Mather’s half interest in a Vanuatu property is yet to be decided. Inheritance is complicated by both terms of Mr Mather’s ‘contracting out’ agreement and the fact this is overseas real estate, outside jurisdiction of New Zealand courts.
Kingsford v. Mathers – High Court (30.08.24)
24.214