Two women who accused their father of sexual assault have gone to court in a bid to avoid being the sole beneficiaries of his will.
The unusual case came before the High Court at Rotorua, where earlier this month Justice Gerard van Bohemen ruled against the daughters — effectively handing them the estate with a gross value of $868,000.
"They have caused unnecessary cost and delay in resolving what should have been a straightforward application ... to settle [the man’s] affairs after his death," he said.
"They have also acted contrary to their own interests in seeking an outcome that could be much less financially beneficial to them."
If their legal challenge had been successful they would probably have split the assets with their father’s de-facto partner.
The daughters ceased contact with their father when they were 8, after he allegedly subjected them to physical, emotional and sexual abuse, they told the court.
A police investigation was undertaken and he was not charged.
In December 2020, the man was admitted to hospital.
His daughters were informed but wanted nothing to do with him, the court heard.
Their father died several days later and his partner and relatives went to his home to search through his belongings for any indication as to his final wishes.
In his keepsake drawer they found an envelope labelled "last will and testament".
The document — not dated or signed by a witness — stated he wanted his assets split between his daughters.
Both the man’s partner and his sister swore affidavits that the note was consistent with what he had told them in recent years.
The sister applied to the court to have the document be validated as a will but it was opposed by the daughters.
Their counsel James Peacock argued that because the document was clearly made a considerable time ago it could not reasonably be taken as representing the man’s intentions at the time he died.
The envelope bore the logo of an entity which was in existence from 2001 until 2010, hence it was at least a decade old.
Justice van Bohemen rejected the argument.
"The period of time between document creation and death is largely immaterial," he said.
"It is apparent that [the deceased] prepared, without the assistance of lawyers, what he thought was a will and called a will. He did not have his signature witnessed, probably because he was unaware of the requirement. For the next 11 to 15 years, he took no further steps to formalise the will, most likely because he did not think he had to do anything further. As far as he was concerned, he had done all he needed to do."
While the daughters may have been financially better off through the judge’s ruling, it meant they would now have to deal with family, with whom they had strained relations, regarding disposal of the assets.
Had the will been declared invalid, the process would have been dealt with administratively.
The daughters refused to comment on the case.
