Supreme Court Daughter To Have More From Mother’s Estate

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30221, 28 August 1963, Page 12

Supreme Court Daughter To Have More From Mother’s Estate

Greater provision for a daughter from her mother's estate was given by Mr Justice Macarthur in a decision in the Supreme Count yesterday on an action brought under the Family Protection Act by Sylvie Myrtle Helen Tilley, aged 56, married (Mir H. J. B. Quigley). His Honour altered the provisions of the will by deleting bequests to charity, reducing a bequest to a great-grandson and increasing the provision for the plaintiff.

Mr Quigley submitted that the plaintiff should receive the whole of the estate, which comprised a house with a Government valuation of £2250, and about £3OO in cash, after expenses. The plaintiff’s mother, Ellen Harriett Watson, a widow, died on January 23 this year. In her will she left a life interest in the house to her daughter. First defendants in the action were Peter Paul Justin Amodeo, a solicitor, and Denaldine Campbell, a spinster, trustees of the estate. They were represented by Mr N. P. Williamson. Five beneficiaries in the will were named as second defendant. They were Alison Isobel Joy Long, and Joan Elsie Helen Margaret Currie, daughters of the plaintiff, Gregory John Anderson, aged 11, a great grandson of the testatrix, St. Mary’s Anglican Church, Halswell, and the Church of England Hospital, Inc. Long is represented by Mr E S. Bowie and Anderson by Mr C. M. Roper. His Honour said the plaintiff had been a very dutiful daughter. Referring to Mr Quigley’s submission that the plaintiff should receive all the estate his Honour said this had occasionally been done, but usually only in the case of widows.

Outlining the plaintiff's claim Mr Quigley said that under the provisions of the will the plaintiff was given a life interest in her mother’s house at 83 Halswell road. She was required, however, to pay all rates and taxes on the property, and maintain it in good and habitable order to the satisfaction of the trustees. The will then provided that on the death of the plaintiff the property should be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the plaintiff’s daughters, and the testatrix’s great • grandson, Gregory Anderson. Of the balance of the estate, to be converted to cash, the will provided a sum of £250 for Gregory Anderson and four smaller legacies for the plaintiffs daughters and two charities. Mr Quigley said the plaintiff had shown a tremendous sense of duty towards her mother. He outlined the help the plaint iff had been to her over more than 40 years. “The plaintiff had devoted her whole life to helping her mother in every possible way The testator had clearly failed to provide her only child with the material rewards she so rightly deserved,” Mr Quigley said. Mr Bowie said he could find no cases in which a whole estate had been given by the court to a child (or an only child) of a testator or testatrix. He submitted that the 'will could be altered to provide for the sale of the house and for the plaintiff to have the invested income until her death, or alternatively that a smaller house could be bought, more suitable to the plaintiff’s needs, and with the same conditions of trust to apply as m the existing will Mr Roper said the will left something to be desired. He submitted that the plaintiff could be aillowed to have all the ready cash available from

the estate, and to purchase a house more suitable to her needs and retain a life interest im this ‘‘substitute” house.

“Or, alternatively, there should be a complete wind-ing-up of the estate by a cash payment to the plaintiff, in addition to her receiving the other cash available from the esta/be,” Mr Roper said.

He said that if the house was given outright to the plaintiff it could prove a “bone of contention” after her death. In his decision, his Honour said he departed from the scheme of the will because of the unusual circumstances of the case. From the cash in hand Gregory Anderson would be paid £lOO and Mrs Tilley £ll7 representing accrued rent for the house. The house was to be sold as soon as possible and the remainder of the estate, including the proceeds of the sale, plus the remaining cash would be distributed three-quarters to the plaintiff and the other quarter to Mrs Long, Mrs Currie and Gregory Anderson in equal shares.