WIDOW ALLOWED £1000

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25207, 11 June 1947, Page 3

WIDOW ALLOWED £1000

SHARE OF HUSBAND’S ESTATE SUPREME COURT ORDER MADE An order increasing the provision made for Winifred Alice Ecclesfield, a widow, of Christchurch, under the will of her husband, Robert George Ecclesfield, a customs clerk, of Christchurch, was made by Mr Justice Fleming, in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr A. W. Brown appeared for the plaintiff, Mrs Ecclesfield, and Mr A. D. Harman for William Tyndall de Renzy Harman, executor of the testator's will. Mr I. H. Macarthur (Wellington) appeared for the defendants, Esther Meta Ecclesfield (Wellington), Thomas Augustus Ecclesfield (Kokotahi), Robert Charles Ecclesfield (Otahuhu), Esther North (Wellington), and Belle Middlemas (Whitstable, England). The other defendant, Arthur Jeffreys (Narrabean, Sydney), was not represented by counsel. Mr Brown said this was an originating summons under the Family Protection Act, 1908, on behalf of a widow asking further provision from Ihe estate of her late husband. The testator- died in November, 1944. There were no children. In his will, which was made in 1924, the testator left his half-share in their home to his wife. He then divided his estate into 24 equal parts and directed that they be held in trust—his wife to have the ’ income for life from eleven-twenty - fourths; his mother to have two-twenty-fourths, four sisters two-twenty-fourths each, his nephew, Thomas A. Ecclesfield, one-twenty-fourth, and his nephew, Robert C. Ecclesfield, two-twenty-fourths. If any of the beneficiaries died, their children were to take their parents’ share. On the death of the widow, her eleven-twenty-fourths were to be divided equally among the beneficiaries nr med in the will. The net result was that the widow was cut off with the income from the eleven-twenty-fourths of the estate while the other beneficiaries were entitled to receive a capital payment forthwith and would share eventually in ■ the eleven-twenty-fourths in which the widow held a life interest. Of the beneficiaries, only his widow, one sister, and two nephews survived the testator. The estate was worth approximately £5OOO, said Mr Brown. The widow was entitled to the? income on £2300. The other relatives would get the capital and income on £2700 and, on the widow’s death, they would share £2300. The testator thus provided much more handsomely for his relatives than for his wife. Mrs Ecclesfield had assets of her own, which brought her a little over £lOO a year, but this income had gone to help the household. She also owned a halfshare in the home. Counsel submitted that the plaintiff was entitled to a capital payment of £2OOO, and the income from the rest of the estate during her widowhood. Mr Macarthur said the view of those whom he represented was that they recognised the widow had first claim on the estate and they desired to see her fairly treated. “The question is, has the testator failed to make provision for the proper maintenance and support of his widow? If so, what is the proper provision which should be made?” continued counsel. “The vital point ' is whether there should be any lump sum payment of capital to the claimant. I submit the law is clear that there should be no such payment of capital.” Counsel then quoted legal authorities in support of his submissions and suggested that the Court might make an order giving the widow the half-share in the dwelling-house during her widowhood and the whole of the income from the remainder of the estate during her widowhood. His Honour made an order that the plaintiff have transferred to her the testatorts half interest in the Dormer street property; that she be allowed £lOOO in cash; that the trustees pay the share of Esther Ecclesfield forthwith as reduced by the extra provision for the widow and that the income from the balance of the estate be paid to the plaintiff during her widowhood. The question of costs was reserved.