Dean Baldwin’s unsuccessful complaint about Rochelle Sullivan to the Real Estate Institute helped sink his later High Court claim to greater share of his Christchurch uncle’s $610,000 estate.
Telling the Institute prior to his uncle’s death in July 2023, as part of his complaint about her behaviour, that his uncle Bernie Pope was still unsure about how his estate should be divided, called into question the finality of a telephone call ten days earlier by Mr Pope to his lawyer about re-writing his will.
In this earlier telephone call, Mr Pope had told his lawyer he wanted to remove Ms Sullivan as a beneficiary, instead dividing his entire estate between relatives, increasing Mr Baldwin’s share to sixty per cent.
As executor of Mr Pope’s estate, Mr Baldwin asked the High Court to accept the lawyer’s file note recording this phone conversation as a valid Wills Act alteration to Mr Pope’s earlier will.
If accepted, the primary effect would be to leave Ms Sullivan with nothing, removing her as fifty per cent beneficiary of his estate, while increasing Mr Baldwin’s share from forty per cent to sixty per cent.
The High Court refused, Justice Mander ruling there was insufficient evidence this phone call represented Mr Pope’s settled ‘testamentary intentions;’ a Wills Act requirement.
Evidence was given of Mr Pope signing no less than six wills in the last five years of his life. He frequently changed solicitors.
Unmarried and with no children, he had lived alone in his New Brighton home seldom receiving visitors. His house was a health hazard. Mr Pope was a hoarder.
Evidence was given of real estate agent Ms Sullivan being his neighbour for two years in the five year period prior to his death. She kept in casual contact after shifting to live elsewhere.
Mr Pope described her as his only contact when hospitalised, failing to advise that nephew Dean Baldwin held an enduring power of attorney on his behalf.
Ms Sullivan organised a cleanout of Mr Pope’s home prior to an unsuccessful attempt at discharging him from hospital.
It was only after Mr Pope’s later admission to full time care that Mr Baldwin’s potential involvement came to light. There had been no contact between him and his uncle ‘for years.’
Evidence was given of a steadily deteriorating relationship developing between Ms Sullivan and Mr Baldwin, leading to Mr Baldwin making complaints to Age Concern, the Real Estate Institute and Police; none of which were substantiated.
While Mr Baldwin alleged Ms Sullivan put undue pressure on his uncle to become a primary beneficiary of his estate, Ms Sullivan alleged Mr Baldwin was the prime mover behind Mr Pope’s phone call six week prior to his death which sought to disinherit her.
Justice Mander reviewed the manner in which Mr Pope had revised his previous wills, with evidence of Mr Pope’s initial instructions often being amended on lawyers’ advice. Typically, his lawyers advised it was not wise that relatives be excluded entirely from any bequests.
Following discussions before signing his final will, Mr Pope increased the amount left to relatives on his lawyer’s advice, leaving a reduced fifty per cent share to Ms Sullivan.
Against this background, Justice Mander ruled the lawyer’s May 2023 file note recording Mr Pope’s telephone message advising plans to disinherit Ms Sullivan could not be accepted as Mr Pope’s final testamentary views. Any resulting new will could well have differed, after further discussion with his lawyer.
Mr Pope’s March 2023 will remains unaltered, with fifty per cent of his estate bequeathed to Ms Sullivan
Baldwin v. Sullivan – High Court (16.06.26)
26.182