Greater Provision For Widow From Estate

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30712, 30 March 1965, Page 6

Greater Provision For Widow From Estate

Because the residue of the estate had been exhausted by death duties of £23,615, the available annual income in two separate years for the widow of a testator whose net estate was valued at £75,697 was £372 in the first year and £164 in the second, Mr A. D. Holland told Mr Justice Wilson in the Supreme Court yesterday. Mr Holland was appearing for Kathleen Mary Wright, who sought under the Family Protection Act increased provision from the estate of her husband, Walter Wright, a farmer, of Christchurch, who died on November 25, 1961, aged 78. The first defendants were Mrs Wright, William Ebenezer Wright, the testator’s eldest son, and Hurren Martin Stanhope Dawson, a solicitor, of Christchurch, as trustees of the estate (Mr C. E. Purchase). The second defendants were the testator’s sons and daughters by his first marriage— William Ebenezer Wright (Mr Purchase), Cecil Conway Wright, Joyce Mildred Arnold, Thelma Armon, Percy Walter Wright (all represented by Mr I. C. J. Polson). Nola Wright, of Auckland, and Florence Kirkpatrick, of Auckland (both represented by Mr J. R. Woodward). Members of the second family Richard Shurrock Wright, Carolyn Mary Wright and Bruce Thomas Wright (all represented by Mr E. J. Somers)—were the third defendants. Mr Holland said that the parties were essentially in agreement, and sought an order in the terms of the draft submitted. The widow was 56, and had borne Wright three children, now aged between 18 and 11. The seven children of Wright’s previous marriage were aged between 52 and 39. Mr Holland said there had been a failure to make provision for the widow, but that had not been intended. Under the will Wright’s widow received personal effects, furniture, a car, and £5OO out-

right. The farm property was to be held for life for her, and then was to be divided equally among nine of his children, excluding the eldest, Walter Ebenezer Wright, who had been forgiven a debt. Milk company shares were to be divided equally among the other six children of the first family apart from W. E. Wright. The residue of the estate was to provide income for the widow for life and then to be divided equally among all 10 children. With death duties exhausting the residue nothing had been left to provide the widow’s income apart from the life interest in the farm. The order sought would give to the widow the income of the whole estate for the first five years from the testator’s death. The six members of the first family, excluding W. E. Wright, should receive £12,000 from the substantial amount of cash available to the trustees, as they had the interest in the estate’s milk company shares. After the expiration of the five years in November, 1966, there would be a reversion to the terms of the will. That, it was expected, would give the widow an income of about £l5OO.

Other counsel consenting, his Honour then made an order in terms of the draft.