Dispute Over Disposition Of Mother’s Estate

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30447, 22 May 1964, Page 8

Dispute Over Disposition Of Mother’s Estate

An action by Rena Evelyn Laurenson (Mr E. S. Bowie) against her mother’s will under the Testamentary. Promises Act and. the Family Pro tection Act was heard by Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday.

The defendants were Ronald Wilfred Boulton, executor (Mr P. H. T. Alpers), as first defendant; Mavis Ranui Lowry, Frances Amy Baxter (Mr Alpers), Robin Frengley (Mr W. A. Anderson), second defendants; Josephine Frengley (Mr Anderson), third defendant; and Linton Edgar Boulton (Mr N. S. Murchison) fourth defendant. Mr Bowie said that Mrs Laurenson was a daughter of Amy Heyes, who died leaving five surviving children. A sixth predeceased her. Mrs Heyes was known to have made three wills—in October, 1942, which left her estate equally to her children; in May, 1957, which left her house and furniture to Mrs Laurenson, and in September, 1957, which called for her estate to be divided equally. In 1946 Mrs Laurenson left her Dunedin position to come to Christchurch to care for her mother. A letter from her mother which contained a promise of being left the house prompted the action. Mrs Laurenson left in 1951 and later entered hospital, but returned to care for her mother in 1957.

During the first period of housekeeping and caring for her mother she received free board and lodging for herself and her daughter, plus £1 a week, and also received a widow’s benefit, he said. During her second period of caring for her mother, she received £3 a week and a widow’s benefit. Plaintiff’s Evidence In evidence Mrs Laurenson said she went to Christchurch after receiving a letter from her mother which said she would receive the house after her death if she returned to care for her. She took the offer for security reasons and on the understanding she would receive the whole of her mother’s estate, whieh she thought was only the house. Her mother told her she was one of the family in need of a home and security, and she would leave everything to her. She left after about four years after violence toward her and her mother by her mother’s second • v husband. When she returned after about six years it was at her own suggestion. The plaintiff denied that

she was paid £3 a week in the second period of care. The money was received to pay for food for herself and her mother.

Her mother had been mysterious about her will, and as she had understood the whole estate was to come to her on her mother’s death it had been a shock to discover she was to receive only onesixth, she said. Cross-examined Cross-examined by Mr Alpers, Mrs Laurenson said she did not know what had happened to the letter -which contained the promise of the house if she came to Christchurch. She denied she was being greedy in expecting the whole estate in view of the circumstances of her brothers and sisters.

Mr Alpers said there had been no corroboration of the letter having been written. His clients did not dispute the services Mrs Laurenson had given her mother in the 12 months before her death. The manner of her leaving after the first period showed she was dispensable, and her return was not at her mother’s request. The return was of mutual convenience, and possibly to Mrs Laurenson’s advantage. Any tie placed on the estate in view of his clients’ ages would debar them from the benefits of their mother’s estate, Mr Alpers said.

The value of the estate was about £4OOO, of which half approximately was the Value of the house and contents, he said. Ronald Wilfred Boulton, a bank officer, said he managed his mother’s affairs for a number of years, but had no knowledge of the two wills written in 1957. Nor did his mother mention the alleged promise to leave Mrs Laurenson the house.

Francis Amy Baxter said that her mother was in good health during most of the first period in which Mrs Laurenson cared for her. During the year before her mother’s death her health deteriorated and she required nursing. The witness said that Mrs Laurenson often told her she was the only one of the family who did “not have a roof over her,” and the witness said she once suggested to her mother that the house be left to Mrs .Laurenson. Mrs Laurenson’s illness shortly afterwards was the reason for revocation of the will, she said. Mr Justice Wilson reserved his decision till today.