A WIFE'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 13, 16 July 1923, Page 8

A WIFE'S CLAIM

AGAINST HUSBAND'S ESTATE

DOES PREVIOUS AGREEMENT BAR HER?

An interesting question was raised during the hearing of a case under the Family Protection Act, which came before the Full Court. The question arose out of an application by Mary Parrish, ' widow- of the late Isaac Parrish, of Christchurch, for an increased allowance to her out of her late husband's estate. The value of the estate was declared to bo about £16,000. The testator left surviving him his widow and eight adult children by his first wife, the applicant having been his second wife. Tho applicant entered the service of the testator ns his housekeeper in December, 1915, he then being seventy years of age, and sho 45. On Mth March, 1917. tho parties were married. ■ Prior to the marriage a deed was entered into between the applicant and the .testator to the effect that the applicant, the ■ then prospective wife, would accept at the death of the testator £400 in satisfaction of her claims against the estate, and-that the balance of the estate should be divided among tho eight children of/the husband by the icrmer marriage. Immediately after his second marriage, the husband made a will in terms' of the agreement, but somo time after the marriage he made a codicil by which he "increased the bequest to his wife to £1000. He died on 4th September, 1921. The application originally came before Mr. Justice Adams, but he ordered its removal into the Full Court on account of its importance. At the hearing- Mr. T. W. Howe appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. F. D. Sargent for two daughters and three sons of the testator, and Mr. 11. H. Cornish tor the three remaining sons. It was submitted by counsel for the plaintiff that a contract on the part of a wife to waive the benefits on -the I'anuly Maintenance Act was void as against public policy, and that, therefore, it was competent for the plaintiff to approach the Court and ask for an increased allowance. Such an increase it was contended, was just and necessary, _as the bequest of £1000 did not constitute adequate provision ■ i uS?uS? nt, Urged thafc if ifc should be held that the applicant had contracted out of the benefits of the Act it was competent for her to do so', and that the contract should be upheld, as there was nothing in the' Act to debar it: Mr Urinsh held that the applicant had not ! contracted out of the Act, but had ' rather contracted with reference to the ! state of things contemplated by the Act llm was not a case where a woman had contracted not to exercise her rights as widow, but had/agreed in advance with the testator upon an amount representing the" pecuniary value of those rights' T,t ft ? 1S h, ad lurthcr aSreed in advance that such an amount would constitute adequate provision. ' Decision was reserved..