According to the decision released today, Adam* died in November 2020 from complications arising from a suicide attempt. Just a week earlier, he was charged with assault on a person in a family relationship, assault on a child and common assault after a complaint from his partner Sarah*.
He shared two children with Sarah, whom he began dating in 2013. He also had two other children from an earlier relationship.
Adam had a will written in 2014, with his two brothers named as executors. Both brothers were set to receive 10 per cent of Adam’s assets, while the remaining 80 per cent would be split between his surviving children when they reached the age of 20. Sarah wasn’t named as a beneficiary.
But in April 2019, Adam emailed a law firm asking to update his will. He sent the firm a “draft will” which shared cash assets evenly among his then-three children, any future children, and gifted his property assets to Sarah.
The correspondence with the law firm stopped shortly afterwards without a new will being completed, but in 2020, Adam was contacted by the firm and asked who he wanted to name as beneficiaries.
Adam then emailed Sarah with his draft answers to the law firm. “Hi - here is a start - advice???” he wrote to Sarah. The email also stated all assets were to go to her upon his death.
There was no record of Sarah responding to that email, nor any evidence Adam sent it on to the law firm.
By the time Adam died, no new will was completed. The value of his estate totalled $1,841,000, the largest assets of which included $1.3 million in two life insurance payments and $350,000 of equity in a family home. The 2014 will was actioned.
Adam’s intentions not clear - judge
Sarah went on to apply to the High Court to validate either the 2020 email, or the 2019 draft, as Adam’s will.
But in order for the will to be confirmed, the court had to be satisfied it truly represented the person’s testamentary intentions.
Adam’s two brothers, as well as his two children from the earlier relationship, opposed the application.
In her application, Sarah told the High Court Adam didn’t correspond further with the law firm in 2020 as he assumed the 2014 will would be “automatically revoked due to his change in family circumstances”.
In his October 2022 judgment, High Court Justice Mark Woolford ruled the drafted will and email did not constitute a new will. He said both pieces of correspondence were no more than “a start” and “a work in progress”.
There was also a lapse in time between the 2020 email and his death.
The alleged assaults shortly before his death could provide “an example of an event that may have altered his testamentary intentions,” Justice Woolford ruled.
In Sarah’s appeal of the decision, she told the Court of Appeal the 2020 email was “both self-explanatory and tolerably clear”. She said there was no evidence the alleged assaults resulted in a change of heart.
But the panel of the Court of Appeal ruled the High Court’s assessment of the initial application was sound.
Adam clearly stated in the email to Sarah with the proposal that it was “a start” and that he was asking for “advice”.
“We emphasise the point with this rhetorical question,” Justice Mathew Downs wrote in the decision.
“What would [Adam] have done if, for whatever reason, [Sarah] responded that she was unhappy with what [Adam] proposed?”
The court also referenced a line in his drafted will which stated he revoked any previous will.
“The logical inference is that [Adam] knew that he had to revoke the 2014 will by making a new, valid will, and that unless he did so, the 2014 will would continue to be operative.”
The court agreed with the High Court that Adam’s intentions were unsettled in 2019 and 2020 and dismissed the appeal.
*Names have been changed.
Ethan Griffiths covers crime and justice stories nationwide for Open Justice. He joined NZME in 2020, previously working as a regional reporter in Whanganui and South Taranaki.
