Michelle Carey

The death of a loved one is never easy. There are all manner of things that need to be organised when your significant other dies, such as their funeral, as well as saying goodbye and grieving. The process can become even more complicated when issues regarding their estate and relationship property arise. It is not widely known that a surviving spouse or partner has a right to make an election either to take their entitlement under the Will or to seek an order for the division of relationship property, if that is more favourable than what they are left under the Will. A concept of moral duty to adequately provide for certain family members out of your estate also exists. It is also possible to seek provision from an estate if you provided a service whilst the person was alive on the basis they promised to provide for you in their Will, but this has not been recorded in their Will. Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“PRA”)The PRA gives a surviving spouse or partner two options. Option A is to apply for a division of the relationship property, the starting point being an equal division. Option B is to simply take what you are entitled to under the deceased’s Will or if the deceased did not have a valid Will (dying ‘intestate’), to take what you are entitled to under the Administration Act 1969. In some circumstances, the executors of an Estate can also seek permission from the Court to bring a claim against the surviving spouse/partner for division of property between the spouse/partner and the Estate. This can be complex and is less common. Why make a choice for division of relationship property rather than taking what you’re entitled to under the Will? The surviving spouse or partner could be entitled to more under the PRA than they would receive under the Will. Examples include: If no provision or inadequate provision is made for the surviving partner in the Will, for example if the family home was owned by the deceased and it has been left to their children from an earlier relationship. Where there is no valid Will . If there is an outdated Will which provides for a previous partner and not the current partner. There are specific time limits involved with making an election, so it is important that legal advice is sought promptly. Legal advice will help you make an informed decision within the correct time frame while making the process as simple as possible. Family Protection Act 1955 (“FPA”)The FPA allows for a claim to be made by a spouse or partner (and other categories of persons) for provision from a deceased’s estate if proper maintenance and support has not been provided to the surviving spouse or partner. There are a number of circumstances that the Court can take into account when determining whether to grant provision from a deceased’s estate. Applications can be made by a spouse or partner, children and grandchildren, and even stepchildren or parents if they were being financially supported by the deceased and they feel there should have been provision made for them. As with a PRA claim, there are specific time limits for bringing an application under the FPA and it is important that legal advice is sought promptly. Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 (“TPA”)The TPA provides an avenue to make a claim if someone provided services to the deceased and in return they promised to leave them something under the Will, but in fact no provision was made for them. Such services can include anything above and beyond the reasonable obligations expected of a loved one. The claimant needs to prove: That they rendered services to, or performed work for, the deceased in their lifetime; That there was a promise by the deceased to reward the claimant; A link between the services and the promise; and There was no promised testamentary provision or reward provided in the Will for the claimant. The promise for compensation can be expressed or implied, in writing or verbal. The Court will consider all facts in the case when making a decision. When people get caught outThere are a few laws surrounding wills which may surprise you. The unpleasant truth is normally discovered by those who are already grieving. Administration Act 1969When a person dies without a Will or their Will is invalid, they are considered intestate. This means that distribution of their estate will occur under the Administration Act 1969. Section 77 of the Administration Act 1969 sets out the patterns of distribution according to who the intestate leaves behind, for example: a spouse or partner, children, and/or parents. Section 77 of the Administration Act 1969 is noteworthy in that, after the payment to the surviving spouse/partner of a prescribed amount and them receiving the chattels, it distributes the residue of an intestate person’s estate with one third to a spouse or partner and two thirds to any children. Therefore, it is particularly important for those who have children to leave a Will if they wish to provide more than a third of their estate to any current spouse or partner. Marriage cancels a will, but divorce does notWhen a Will exists before marriage, once a person is married, the Will is only valid if the Will states that it was made “in contemplation of the marriage”. On the contrary, when divorce or separation occurs, a Will is not automatically void. If the marriage or civil union has been legally dissolved, but the Will has not been changed, then the appointment of the spouse as executor and any disposition to the spouse under the Will (with limited exception where a disposition is in favour of children) is void and the Will must be read as if the spouse had died immediately before the Will maker. If you still wish to appoint your ex-spouse or partner as an Executor and/or include them as a beneficiary once your marriage or civil union has been dissolved, then we strongly recommend that you update your Will so that it is clear that your wishes are post-dissolution and still stand. If no legal dissolution of marriage or civil union has occurred, then the provisions of the Will that relate to the spouse are not automatically void. We strongly encourage that Wills are updated as soon as separation occurs otherwise an estranged spouse or partner may receive more than intended. If a Will is not updated, any children may be left to make a claim to the estate. Whilst separation will be a factor taken into account, it is onerous to leave family to work through this at a time which is already emotional. ConclusionIn an era where nuclear families are no longer the norm or majority, it is important to receive legal advice on, and to leave, a Will so that you can be in control of how your estate is distributed on your passing. Not only does this provide certainty for your loved ones, but it can resolve familial relationship issues before they arise in what is already a highly emotive time. The Holland Beckett Family and Estates teams would be happy to assist you, in the first instance in completing a legally valid Will, and also in working through any challenges to a Will that you face on the death of a loved one. Please do not hesitate to get in contact with us early on so that we can ensure the minimum amount of stress is placed on you throughout such difficult times.

On 7 December 2022, the High Court heard urgent arguments regarding a six month old baby (“Baby W”) who was in Starship Hospital and required heart surgery. The parents of Baby W were not consenting to the use of blood from people who had been vaccinated for COVID-19 in Baby W’s surgery, which required the use of donated blood products. The parents of Baby W wanted only non-vaccinated blood to be used in the surgery – a process called directed blood donation. Directed blood donations Directed blood donations are blood donations arranged by an individual, family or group of people for a particular person. Directed blood donations are not a practice that is supported by the New Zealand Blood Service (“NZBS”) due to there being no evidence that they lead to improved patient care. It is also thought that directed blood donations can increase the risk of acquiring transfusion associated infections (such as where a donor feels pressured to answer incorrectly to the pre-donation health survey in order to be allowed to donate blood for a specific person). The NZBS gave evidence in Court that there was no scientific evidence that there was any COVID-19 vaccine-related risk from blood donated by donors who were previously vaccinated with any COVID-19 vaccine approved for use in New Zealand. Other reasons against directed blood donation in these circumstances (and more widely) include: Baby W required rapid access to a full range of blood and plasma products to support the complex heart surgery; The introduction of unnecessary complexity into well-established blood collection and processing systems, translating to an increased risk of errors and possibility of inadequate blood product supply for the patient as some products, including those which Baby W was expected to require, are collected using specialised collection techniques from carefully qualified donors and are manufactured using regulated processes. Some products are even manufactured in Australia; COVID-19 vaccination (or infection) produces antibodies to the virus. There was no evidence of harm from antibodies to COVID-19 being present in blood and it was unlikely that any products of COVID-19 vaccines can end up in the blood stream. Should any such products have been in the donated blood, there was no evidence of harm from these products. Directed blood donations are also not recommended by international expert consensus guidelines, including in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. An instance where directed blood donations may be appropriate was said to include where a patient had a rare blood type, where no compatible volunteer donations were available. As discussed, this did not apply to Baby W’s circumstances. Guardianship Guardians need to agree on important matters such as whether medical treatment which is not routine in nature should occur. If the guardians cannot agree (for example, one guardian wants a child to be vaccinated and the other does not) then ultimately the Court can be asked to make a determination resolving the dispute between guardians.(for more information on this particular issue, see here). Sometimes parents agree but medical professionals disagree on the course of life saving treatment for a child. In this case, both parents were not consenting to the use of blood products from people who had received COVID-19 vaccination in completing heart surgery on Baby W but initially agreed that surgery needed to be completed. There were unvaccinated people that were prepared to give a directed blood donation. The Court has the ability to make an order appointing guardianship of a child under 18 years old to the Court or another named person for a specified period of time. Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand applied to the Court for an order putting Baby W under the guardianship of the Court, so that the life saving surgery could go ahead using the NZBS available blood products (ie. blood from vaccinated and unvaccinated donors, without differentiation). The Judge took great care in their decision to acknowledge that the parents of Baby W wanted the best for their child and held genuine concerns, but ultimately agreed with expert evidence that blood donated by people who were vaccinated for COVID-19 was safe for use. The best interests of the child are the paramount consideration for the Court. Using blood from a donor of the parents’ choosing was not an available alternative, and this was not supported by doctors. Therefore, this was not a safe alternative in Baby W’s best interests. Baby W was put under Court guardianship to allow NZBS available blood products to be used for Baby W’s heart surgery effectively overruling the parents’ decision. The parents then withdrew their consent to the pre-surgery procedures and surgery generally, and the Court issued a further urgent minute widening the guardianship powers to include all necessary pre-surgery procedures and surgery generally. This is not the first, nor last time that the Court will exercise its powers to appoint the Court as guardian. Other examples of the Court intervening in this way include: For the purpose of obtaining a DNA sample to determine paternity of a child when one guardian refuses to consent to the sample being taken; Variously where religious beliefs meant that parents would not consent to a blood transfusion which was vital to a child, as well as for kidney or liver transplants which would require blood transfusion as a part of those procedures; When a baby’s mother carried hepatitis B but refused to consent to her baby receiving hepatitis B injections to stop them contracting the disease due to religious beliefs; When a nine year old’s father would not accept his child’s diagnosis of HIV, despite the child’s mother’s reason for death being recorded in part as caused by HIV. The child had also taken HIV medication for several years prior and there was serious risk to the child if the medication was not continued; and When a child’s safety is at serious risk in the care of either or both parents. Outcome An order enabling the surgery to proceed using NZBS blood products without delay was made as this was considered to be in the best interests of Baby W in the circumstances. It should be clarified that the Court intervened to the least extent possible in order to save Baby W’s life. This is a principle that the Court maintains to ensure that parents retain their guardianship rights for their children to the maximum extent possible in the child in questions’ best interests and welfare. The only act that the Court overruled the parents on, was the act of carrying out the surgery and the use of the blood products. Baby W was otherwise to remain under the parent’s guardianship once surgery was completed. The parents were informed at all reasonable times of the nature and progress of Baby W’s condition and treatment. If you find yourself facing an issue like this, the Family Law team at Holland Beckett Law would be happy to assist you in reaching resolution. The COVID Healthline is available for 24/7 advice and information in relation to COVID-19, including vaccination, on 0800 358 5453.

Provisions in the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“Act”) that enable victims of family violence to leave a tenancy at short notice are in force and can be used, with the corresponding regulations coming into force on 29 December 2022. IntroductionOn 11 August 2021, changes to the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 took effect. These changes included provisions relating to ending residential tenancies, including fixed term and periodic tenancies, on short notice if that tenant has experienced family violence during their tenancy. No financial penalty can be given to a tenant cancelling this way and the landlord’s agreement does not need to be sought. Cancelling a tenancy following family violenceTenants who experience family violence during their tenancy can cancel that tenancy by giving at least two days’ notice to their landlord. They will not need to apply to the Tenancy Tribunal. Family violence in this context is given the same meaning as under the Family Violence Act 2018 (for more information, see here). The notice itself must be given on a specified form and include certain information which has been set out in the associated regulations. This should be given to the landlord in writing. The notice will be considered to be received by the landlord from the moment it is sent, with the notice period starting the next day. The specified form can be found here. What sort of evidence of family violence is required?The notice needs to include at least one form of evidence that the tenant has experienced family violence during the tenancy. Acceptable evidence may include: a letter or email from one of a number of specified persons (which includes for example a lawyer, a social worker, a medical professional, a counsellor or Police); a Police Safety Order, a Protection Order or a charging document relating to the family violence; or a statutory declaration from the withdrawing tenant What happens once the notice has taken effect?Once the two-day notice period has passed, the tenant who is withdrawing will no longer be responsible for rent under the tenancy. If the person cancelling the tenancy is the only tenant, the tenancy will end. The normal end of tenancy requirements will apply. The cancelling tenant should give notice of their cancellation if there are other tenants remaining at the property. The notice does not have to be given in person and no evidence of family violence or other information needs to be shared. However, if no notice is given to the remaining tenants, the notice given to the landlord will still not fail. With a few exceptions, the amount of rent that the remaining tenants must pay is reduced for two weeks following the initial two-day notice period. After that, rent will return to the normal amount of rent, as per the tenancy agreement. There are options available to the remaining tenants to negotiate with the landlord to stay in the home with fewer tenants, add a new tenant, find a flat mate, or end the tenancy themselves. If a dispute arises, an application to the Tenancy Tribunal can be made to resolve the matter. Landlord obligationsLandlords are encouraged to be flexible in their response to tenants who approach them under these circumstances and must keep any information shared with them confidential, including the notice and supporting evidence. Disclosure can only be made in limited circumstances and the landlord could be liable for a fine of up to $3,000 if they unlawfully share the notice or supporting evidence. Landlords can also agree to end the tenancy early without having to be provided with the notice or supporting evidence following discussions with their tenant. Landlords can calculate the amount of the reduced rent according to section 56B(5) of the Act. Such reduction in rent is not a variation of tenancy. Once the rent returns to the normal amount, this does not constitute a rent increase. Lastly, a landlord cannot challenge a family violence withdrawal notice on the basis of there being no family violence. If you are a landlord dealing with a situation like this and unsure of your obligations, we can assist you. ConclusionIf you are being abused, remember that it is not your fault, it is not acceptable, and it is not okay. You have the right to be safe and to live a life free from family violence. These new provisions offer a way out for those feeling stuck in a violent relationship due to living commitments. The specialist Family Law team at Holland Beckett Law are available to give advice on ending tenancies at short notice due to family violence and are experienced with applying to the court for protection orders also. Do not hesitate to reach out to us if you require assistance. If you are in danger now: Phone the Police on 111 or ask neighbours or friends to ring for you. Run outside and head for where there are other people. Scream for help so that your neighbours can hear you. Take the children with you. Do not stop to get anything else. Where to go for help or more information: Shine:  Free, confidential, national helpline operates 24/7 – 0508 744 633, www.2shine.org.nz Women\'s Refuge:  Free, confidential, national crisis line operates 24/7 – 0800 refuge or 0800 733 843, www.womensrefuge.org.nz Shakti:  Providing specialist cultural services for African, Asian and Middle Eastern women and their children. Free, confidential, national crisis line operates 24/7 – 0800 742 584 It\'s Not Ok:  Free, confidential, national helpline operating 9am-11pm daily – 0800 456 450, www.areyouok.org.nz Hey Bro Helpline:  Supporting men to be free from violence:  a free, confidential, national helpline operating 24/7 – 0800 HeyBro (439 276) Elder Abuse Helpline:  A free, confidential, national helpline operating 24/7 – 0800 32 668 65, text 5032, email:  support@elderabuse.nz Youthline: A free, confidential, national helpline operating 24/7 – 0800 376 633, free text 234, email:  talk@youthline.co.nz