Adamant that their late father intended to leave them his share of a Hawkes Bay home owned jointly with their stepmother, Nathan and Rebecca Abel attempted unsuccessfully to bring a relationship property claim on his behalf intended to extract half the value of a $1.35 million home.
The disputed property at Clive had been purchased jointly. Their late father’s half share passed automatically to their step-mother by survivorship on his death.
His children from an earlier relationship sued, seeking to establish what would be their late father’s share of relationship property if he had been alive, intending to then split his share between themselves.
Relationship Property Act rules allow claims to be made against an estate. Where effective beneficiary of any claim is children exercising rights of a deceased parent, courts look closely at any financial justification for this claim.
In the High Court, Justice Radich ruled the relationship property claim promoted by siblings Nathan and Rebecca could never succeed; their father’s estate was not substantial and they are comfortably well off.
Evidence was given of Rebecca working for an oil company in Texas and her family home having net equity of some $1.6 million. Nathan was described as owning four properties in Hawkes Bay, together with his wife, plus a fifth property through a company he controls; properties sufficient to currently support borrowings of $2.6 million.
Their father Glenn was in a relationship with their stepmother Jan Jessiman for about 26 years before his death in 2024 at age seventy.
His only asset of substance was their home in Clive, owned jointly.
Son Nathan claimed it was never their father’s intention that Ms Jessiman take full ownership on his death.
Joint ownership of their Clive home should have been registered as tenants in common, to prevent Ms Jessiman inheriting their late father’s share by survivorship, he claimed.
Nathan said his father had stated it was intended that his children would inherit his half share in conversations both with himself and a family friend.
Even if that were his intention, it was not acted on, Justice Radich said.
Nathan pointed to a 2002 family trust established by their father which stated a wish that, if the trust owned a home on his death, then his children could live in the property for the duration of their lives.
No money ever held by this trust was used to buy the Clive property. The trust did not own any share of the Clive home, Justice Radich pointed out.
Evidence was also given of a Microsoft word document left on their late father’s computer titled as ‘last will and testament of Glenn Abel.’ This document was created just over two years prior to his death. Part of this document stated: ‘Jan to live in the house at Clive, but when it is sold half the proceeds go to Nathan.’
Ms Jessiman told the court she did not know who drafted the document, adding that it was full of factual errors and did not match her late spouse’s writing style.
With provenance in question, this document could not be accepted in court as evidence of Mr Abel’s intentions, Justice Radich ruled.
Collectively, evidence before the court was insufficient to override Ms Jessiman’s current right of survivorship, Justice Radich ruled.
Mr Abel’s children provided no evidence of a serious injustice to themselves sufficient to support a possible relationship property claim on behalf of their father, Justice Radich ruled.
Their stepmother retains full ownership of the Clive property.
The court was told she has children of her own from an earlier relationship. Her and Glenn had no children themselves.
Abel v. Jessiman – High Court (3.08.26)
26.214