Brian Winsloe died in 2024 leaving a will stating his assets are to be divided equally between his three children: Blaine, Nicole and Mark. One substantial asset is the former family home in Invercargill, but it is not an estate asset; it is owned by a family trust set up twenty years ago. Blaine and Nicole want the house sold. Mark is living in the house, refusing to budge.
It is now a trust law argument, not an estate law argument.
Both sides are deadlocked. Blaine and Mark are the only two surviving family trust trustees. Mark is no mood to agree with any trust proposal seeing him losing occupation of the Moulson Street property.
Mark says he shifted in one month prior to their father’s death, at his request. His siblings say he didn’t shift in until after their father died.
Blaine, together with sister Nicole, went to court claiming Nicole had now been appointed as a further trustee and asked that Mark be removed as trustee. They want the property sold.
Mark as trustee is hopelessly conflicted, acting in his own interests and not in the best interests of all trust beneficiaries, they claim.
Associate Judge Paulsen declined to remove Mark using the High Court fast-track summary judgment procedure. Blaine and Nicole are also pursuing their own interests in seeking to have Mark removed both as trustee and from occupation of the trust asset, he pointed out.
Mark has a valid objection to trustee demands coming from his siblings when it is disputed whether Nicole had even been validly appointed as a further trustee, Judge Paulsen said.
To avoid the cost of a later full court hearing, Judge Paulsen offered to chair a judicial settlement conference, giving both sides an opportunity to settle their differences.
Winsloe v. Winsloe – High Court (4.11.24)
25.025