Litigation Over Estate Of Intestate Farmer

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27395, 7 July 1954, Page 8

Litigation Over Estate Of Intestate Farmer

A case, in which the Public Trustee appeared in three different capacities and was represented by three counsel, was heard by Mr Justice McGregor in the Supreme Court yesterday. The Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate of Richard James Vanstone, a farmer, of Little River, asked the Court to decide whether a ‘deed of assignment, signed by a number of beneficiaries, was valid and whether the Public Trustee might sell the farm which was the main asset in the estate. Mr A. C. Perry appeared for the Public Trustee as administrator of the estate of Richard James Vanstone. Mr H. W. Thompson appeared for the Public Trustee as statutory administrator of the estate of Harriet Anna Vanstone, one defendant. Mr P. T. Mahon appeared for five members of the family and for th£ Public Trustee as statutory administrator of the estate of Alice May Taylor, a widow, the remaining defendants. “This is a further step in the litfgation involving this unfortunate family,” said Mr Perry, stating the case for the plaintiff. The father, Richard Vanstone, died intestate in 1900. He had a farm of 78 acres in a valley near Little River. He left a widow and 11 children whose ages ranged from one just born to 21. No application for letters of administration was made until 25 years after his death. In those 26 years Mrs Vanstone continued to work the farm. In 192 ft she desired to sell the farm and sought legal advice. She then found that, as her husband had not made a will, she was not his sole beneficiary as she had thought. Mrs Vanstone was appointed administratrix of the estate and remained as such until an application was made to the Supreme Court to remove her from the position, said Mr Perry. The Court made an order appointing the Public Trustee in her stead. Mrs Vanstone and her daughter Harriet Vanstone continued to live on the farm until 1940 when they were both committed to a mental hospital, though they were there for only a short period and were discharged as relieved but not cured. The house on the farm had been destroyed by fire, but the two women lived in a derelict dairy. The farm was let to an adjoining owner. Mr Perry said that the estate now consisted of £ 100 in cash and the farm, valued at £2500, subject to a mortgage of £450. Mrs Vanstone died in 1948 and her estate passed to her daughter Harriet, the Public Trustee being appointed executor of the will. There were 10 of the family now living, one daughter having died in 1902. Another daughter had been comAiitted to a mental hospital.

Question for Court The Public Trustee applied to the Supreme Court for an order to sell the property and Mr Justice Hay made an order, said Mr Perry. Then a letter was received from Mr Thompson on behalf of Miss Harriet Vanstone saying: “What about the claim Miss Harriet Vanstone has against the estate for £7760 due to her mother as wages for 25 years and for £2460 as her own wages for 19 years?” “The Public Trustee is represented today by the three of us in different capacities,” said Mr Perry. When the Public Trustee was appointed administrator of the estate of Richard Vanstone certain of the beneficiaries told the Public Trustee that their mother should have the whole estate. One objector was Rupert Vanstone, and he

was to be paid out in cash. A deed to this effect was drawn up and circulated among the beneficiaries. All of them signed it except Harriet Vanstone, and the deed had not been acted on. z The question the Court was now asked was whether the deed was binding on those who did sign it. If the answer was “yes,” then the whole estate would pass to Harriet Vanstone, except Rupert’s share. If the answer was “no” the next question would be whether the claims for wages were valid.

His Hqnour said that would be a matter for separate action. It could not be dealt with under an originating summons.

Mr Perry said that there might be a question of the claims being statute barred. His Honour might order the Public Trustee to issue a writ on behalf of Harriet Vanstone against himself as administrator of the estate of Richard Vanstone. It seemed desirable that the farm should be sold, whatever happened to the proceeds. Mr Thompson said that Miss Harriet Vanstone considered the Court was unable to grant her the relief,she was entitled to, so she had taken no part

in the proceedings, but, counsel felt, there, were certain matters that should be put forward on her behalf. Mrs Vanstone and Miss Harriet Vanstone lived a life of considerable hardship on the farm for many years, due to Mrs Vhnstone’s refusal to recognise the Public Trustee or to accept money from him. When the two women were 'committed to the mental hospital in 1940 it was mainly because they had confused their moral right to the property with their legal rights. They were in the hospital for only five weeks and out of that they were on leave for 28 days, so a serious view could not have been taken of their condition. Miss Harriet Vanstone was previously embittered over the matter of the estate, but since an uncle in the North Island had died and left her some money her outlook had changed. Counsel submitted that 1 the deed of assignment was binding on the members of the family who had signed it and thpir shares should go to Harriet Vanstone.

Mr Mahon submitted that the deed of assignment was not valid because there was a condition that no party was to be bound by it unless all the parties named in it signed it. This condition had not been fulfilled. His Honour reserved his decision.