Bequest: re Estate Helen Moeroa Snowball

 

A potential $20,000 bequest to a wayward son that disappeared out the front door following a court ruling, then re-appeared through the back door because of rules governing partial intestacies.

When Helen Snowball died in 2023 she left an unsigned will, the document incomplete as she was undecided about whether to leave any money to her son.

The High Court was told she had a difficult relationship with her only child, son Nootai.

At a time when she was running a taxi business, Nootai stole one of the taxis and sold it.  Her only regular contact had been Nootai’s arrival on her doorstep every two to three years demanding money.  Police were called on each occasion.

Her 2023 purchase of an Auckland home at Prangley Avenue in Mangere, ten months prior to her death, prompted advice from her lawyer about a will.

This purchase was registered jointly with her niece, Helen Tumu.  They took title as tenants-in-common in equal shares; meaning there was no right of survivorship, with the half share owned by each forming part of their estate.

The two had lived together since Ms Tumu was aged fourteen, with Ms Tumu later regularly providing household financial assistance.

Ms Tumu did not provide half the purchase cost for Prangley Avenue, but it was agreed that she would pay the mortgage and other outgoings.  This arrangement was recorded in a property sharing agreement.

Ms Snowball told her lawyer she wanted all her estate to go to her grand-niece, Ms Tumu’s daughter.  She is still a child.  Her name was suppressed by the court.

Ms Snowball’s lawyer cautioned about leaving nothing to son Nootai, indicating this might lead to her son later claiming against her estate.

A draft will was prepared leaving a $20,000 gift to Nootai; everything else going to her grand-niece, to be held in trust until she reached age 25.

When presented with this draft for signature, Ms Snowball prevaricated, saying she wanted more time to think about any gift at all to Nootai.

She died before any will was signed.

Using powers in the Wills Act, Justice La Hood approved as Ms Snowball’s final will the unsigned original draft, less the then proposed bequest of $20,000 to her son.

He withheld $20,000 from estate distribution, saying Ms Snowball had made a clear testamentary intention that her estate was to go to her grand-niece, but at time of her death remained undecided about destination of the $20,000.

Default rules in the Administration Act governing intestacies apply to distribution of this $20,000.

Ms Snowball had no husband or de facto partner.  Nootai is her only child.  He inherits the $20,000.

Evidence was given that the balance of Ms Snowball’s estate is valued at about $680,000.

re Estate Helen Moeroa Snowball – High Court (7.07.25)

24.153

Off-shore Trust: Maiolini v. Fideis (New Zealand)

 

There is over twenty million euros at stake with the Maiolini family, living in Italy and the Emirates, claiming professional advisers have duped them, with family losing access to music royalty payments.  The High Court put receivers in control of disputed assets until ownership is resolved, with a legal chase to follow through the intricacies of trust law and international tax arbitrage.

It is alleged professional advisers in the Netherlands, Canada and Australia have milked trust assets for their own benefit, refusing to return control to the Maiolini family.

Giacomo Maiolini is the founder of Time Records and driving force behind Best Records and Riga Music.  In the 1990s, he took advice on international asset structures from Dutch national, Erwin de Ruiter.

The High Court in New Zealand was told details of Maiolini family asset holdings being frequently restructured over the following two decades.

In 2005, an offshore trust was set up in Caribbean tax haven, Nevis: the Riga Settlement Trust.

Mr de Ruiter controlled this Trust.  Royalties were diverted to the Trust.  Mr Maiolini’s signature was needed to operate the Trust’s Luxembourg bank account.

For those versed in the intricacies of international tax law, it is not surprising that no mention was made in Riga Trust documentation of Maiolini family members as settlor, trustee or beneficiaries.

The only named beneficiary was a childrens hospital in Brescia, Italy.

The trust deed did allow for later addition of further beneficiaries.

Complications arose after tax authorities in various jurisdictions around the world cracked down on use of tax havens.

By 2010, Nevis was included on a blacklist of non-co-operative jurisdictions.  Mr de Ruiter recommended trust domicile be shifted to New Zealand.

Assets were then transferred to a new trust established in New Zealand: Riga Settlement (NZ).

The Riga Settlement (NZ) trust deed made no mention of a childrens hospital in Brescia; in fact, there is no named beneficiary in the trust deed.

Mr Maiolini continued to control payments out of the new Trust’s Luxembourg bank account.

Further complications arose with Mr de Ruiter’s 2018 conviction and three years’ imprisonment in the Netherlands for tax fraud.

To distance the New Zealand trust from Mr de Ruiter when he was under investigation in the Netherlands, trust assets were again re-settled in 2015, with creation of a further new trust: Quinoa Settlement.  Architect of this further re-settlement was an associate of Mr de Ruiter, Canadian businessman, Earl Campbell.

Trust assets came to be controlled variously by Mr Campbell and Australian chartered accountant, Kieran Brush, acting through a corporate trustee: Quinoa Trustees Ltd.

The Maiolini family claim that when the Luxembourg bank unilaterally closed the Quinoa Settlement’s bank account in 2019, trust money came to be dispersed into bank accounts in Canada, Dubai, Monaco and also into client accounts with Morgan Stanley and Bank Edmond de Rothschild.

Mr Maiolini claims in the New Zealand High Court that the trio of Mr de Ruiter, Mr Campbell and Mr Brush are diverting trust assets to their own benefit.

Using Trust Act powers, Justice Blanchard put the disputed assets under control of receivers based in New Zealand, until ownership is resolved.

The High Court was told Maiolini family want the 2015 Quinoa Settlement declared null and void.

If successful, this will see trust assets reverting to the prior trust: Riga Settlement (NZ).

This could result in assets then reverting to the Maiolini family.  They claim there is a written ‘statement of wishes’ on record identifying them as ‘hidden’ beneficiaries of the Riga Settlement (NZ) trust.

Maiolini v. Fidelis (New Zealand) Ltd – High Court (4.07.25)

25.152

Trust: Doig v. Kahia

 

With trustees failing to account for trust money received, making payouts in cash with no receipts, and some enjoying personal loans with no obligation to repay; Lisa Doig as beneficiary of a Taupo Maori trust called trustees to account.  The Maori Land Court ordered a meeting of all beneficiaries, with the Court indicating removal of trustees and orders for repayment is in the offing.

The Alice Kahia and Rawiri Kahia Hapeta Whanau Trust is unusual in having a narrower range of beneficiaries than is common for a Maori trust holding substantial assets.  Beneficiaries are direct descendants of Alice and Rawiri.

The full extent of trust assets is not a matter of public record, but the Trust holds shares in Contact Energy and has interests in land situated near both Turangi and Rotorua.  Annual income exceeds $99,000.

The Trust was established in 1995.  There are currently eight trustees.

In 2021, beneficiary Lisa Doig asked the Maori Land Court for a full review of Trust operations.  Her questions have gone unanswered by trustees since 2003. 

A court-ordered investigation found little or no supporting documentation for payments made by trustees, plus evidence of some trust revenue being paid directly into trustees’ personal bank accounts.

There was evidence of some trust transactions being agreed by sub-sets of trustees, without the knowledge and approval of other trustees.

Also of concern was evidence of at least three current trustees having previously borrowed trust funds with no apparent obligation to repay.  In addition, some trustees have received grants with no record of the amounts given, why the grants were made, or who approved payment.

All current trustees, in some way, have breached their trustee duties, Judge Warren said.  These failings went beyond technical breaches of the law, he said.

If whanau choose a trust structure to manage their assets, then they must comply with trust law rules, he said.

Lack of accounting records meant an audit could not be completed.

Judge Warren was critical of trustees not responding to Ms Doig’s requests for information.

A court-ordered meeting of Trust beneficiaries was ordered.

Judge Warren asked beneficiaries to advise whether current trustees should be removed, who might be suitable replacements and whether current loans to trustees should be written off, or repayment terms imposed.

While he will be guided by beneficiary views, Judge Warren made it clear he is not bound by their decisions.

He ordered all trust funds be frozen pending a final decision.

Doig v. Kahia and others – Maori Land Court (3.07.25)

25.151

Liquidation: Khov v. Waitotara Farms

 

With relationship property claims stalled in the Family Court, Linda Smiley joined court-appointed receivers having the High Court wind up an Ohinewai farming company.  She alleges former partner Keith Stark is colluding with others to drive down the value of relationship property.

Calculation of her relationship property entitlements depends, in part, on final distribution of Keith Stark’s late father’s estate.

There have been complaints about Keith’s management of a seventy hectare Waikato farm, still part owned by his late father’s estate.  Loans Keith owes the estate are also in dispute.

Last year, the farm was valued at between $2.6 million and three million dollars.

Estate assets have been under control of court-appointed receivers since 2023.  They told the High Court a recent attempt to sell the farm failed, with Keith trespassing real estate agents from the property.

What followed was an allegedly bogus offer to buy, from an individual suspected to be allied with the ‘sovereign citizen’ movement. 

So-called sovereign citizens deny the state has any control over their lives, putting up pseudo-legal arguments which purport to separate their state-registered name from their personal sovereign existence.  A tenet of their beliefs is that they are not bound by government rules.

Ms Smiley told the High Court she suspects Keith Stark is colluding to drive down the farm sale price, affecting her relationship property claim.

Evidence was given that occupiers of a residential property on the farm are suspected to have links to the sovereign citizen movement.

The High Court was told receivers handling Keith Stark’s late father’s assets had found it impossible to reach agreement on winding up the estate.

Central to the dispute is Waitotara Farms Ltd.  The estate is a minority shareholder in Waitotara Farms.

Keith Stark and Linda Smiley are the two directors.  Any Waitotara decision requires their joint approval.

Receivers’ previous attempt to force sale of farming assets by putting Waitotara Farms into liquidation was put on hold with Keith and Linda jointly agreeing to support plans for sale of the farm.

This agreement led to an October 2024 mediation agreement, signed by all parties, setting out a process for sale.

The High Court was told Keith then deliberately obstructed access.  A scheduled auction was cancelled.

With receivers’ liquidation application then renewed, Keith alleged the receivers ‘continued to exceed their authority,’ were running up excessive bills, were making false and misleading statements and were blocking payment of his wages.

He asked liquidation be delayed, enabling him to get legal advice, and to belatedly file a statement of defence.

Associate Judge Sussock ordered Waitotara Farms Ltd into liquidation immediately.  It was ‘just and equitable’ that liquidation take place, enabling sale of farm assets and distribution of Keith’s father’s estate.

She dismissed claims by Keith that liquidation was not necessary.  He had found a buyer for the farm, he claimed.

There were doubts about the substance of this offer.

There was no deposit payable.  There was a one month ‘due diligence’ clause, with no obligation to buy.  The buyer’s financial circumstances were unknown.

Receivers said the offer was no better than a free option, leaving open the opportunity to come back later and negotiate down the offer price.

Evidence was given that the offer to buy was in the name of an individual who is part-owner of a Huntly property used as the contact address for a non-existent court, oft-named in sovereign citizen pseudo-legal demands: the Royal Crown Court of Equity in Exchequer.

If it was intended to make a bona fide offer for the farm, such an offer can be made now to the liquidator, Judge Sussock said.

Khov v. Waitotara Farms Ltd – High Court (1.07.25)

25.150