Dogs' $1 million inheritance overturned

A High Court judge has reallocated a South Auckland farmer's bizarre and divisive last will and testament. Tony Stickley reports.

Two farm dogs have missed out on a $1 million inheritance they were left in their eccentric owner's will.

Overturning the farmer's will in the High Court at Auckland, Justice Dame Silvia Cartwright said the sum set aside for the dogs was totally unjustifiable, "even for the most aristocratically raised dogs."

The South Auckland farmer, who died in 1996, left his third wife $200,000 plus a lifetime interest in the trust that runs the farm.

After the dogs, the residue of the $4.7 million estate was left to the two sons of friends.

Two sons from the farmer's first marriage contested the will, as did his widow.

Now Dame Silvia has varied the farmer's last will and testament so that the widow receives 61.5 per cent of the estate and the two sons and the friends' sons approximately 9.62 per cent each.

The judge said she was satisfied the animals, a huntaway and an eye dog - one of which belonged to the widow - would be well cared for.

As valuable farm assets, it could be inferred that they would be "appropriately treated by her, that their registration and veterinary fees and all other luxuries they have come to expect will for the duration of their lives be met out of her own resources."

In court the farmer's sons contended that they should get the bulk of the fortune.

The widow agreed that her husband had breached his moral duty to his sons, but she did not think they should get most of the estate.

She also supported "generous provision" for the sons of her husband's dearest friends.

The friends' sons did not want the vast amount they were left under the will.

They acknowledged that the farmer's sons should receive a portion of the estate and strongly supported the widow's claim for further provision to enable her to continue farming the property.

Making her decision, Dame Silvia took a swipe at the sons' "meanness of spirit" which contrasted with the rather more liberal attitude demonstrated towards them by the widow and the dearest friends.

At the time of the farmer's marriage eight years ago, he had been worth $2 million, but during the marriage that had grown to $4.7 million. The judge said the widow, an accountant by profession, had worked just as hard as her husband in managing the farm and 19 flats - in the final years, virtually single-handedly.

"Consequently, much of the increase in value of his assets during the marriage must be attributed to their joint efforts ..."

Dame Silvia said the farmer had a moral duty to his sons as well as to his widow.

One could only speculate why the farmer had left his widow only a life interest in the estate plus a $200,000 bequest, she said.

"It is possible that in spite of the fact that they had worked side by side on the farm and in the broader business of the flats and other investments, the [farmer] held a now-outmoded view on female inheritance, an inference which may be strengthened by the fact that he chose to benefit the two sons of his friends and exclude their daughters from any provision under his will."