Why you should write a will
When Jay's sister Lizzy* died suddenly aged just 39, leaving behind two young children, they searched the house for some indication of what her wishes were.
'We were in this grieving process and we didn't know what to do,' Rachel says. 'We were just hoping and hoping something would eventuate, and it didn't.
'We were really looking for some guidance around what are her wishes? What does she want [done] with her possessions?
'And we were really left holding the bag. We couldn't find a will.'
Things got worse.
Lizzy had been separated from her husband for a year, and both partners had new relationships. But in the eyes of the law, they were within the two-year legal separation period, so they were still officially married – and everything went to her former spouse.
'Unfortunately she had this loose end. Due to a loophole that he was able to exploit, he was able to take all of her estate, and rob their two kids of their inheritance.'
That included a new, substantial life insurance policy clearly meant for the children.
Rachel says the children have been left with no mother, no security, and no inheritance.
She says the ex lawyered up, and the law was on his side.
They don't know if anything has been set aside for their niece and nephew, but they do know the former husband has suddenly acquired some big ticket items including a boat, a car and a house.
He has custody of his children and Rachel believes they will benefit from these things, but she doesn't think it's fair to be spending up large while they are minors.
If there had been a will, she says, 'we would have been able to grieve a bit more, because we would have had the clarity of how to navigate this whole messy situation. It's really torn our family apart in a lot of ways.
'We want what's best for the kids, and we don't know what she wanted. We're not mind readers.'
Today marks the start of Wills Week, where the spotlight is shone on why you shouldn't put off this most vital of life admin tasks.
The Detail speaks to Cat Simpson from the Public Trust about the costs, procedures and pitfalls involved when drawing up – or putting off – a will.
If you have more than $15,000 in assets (don't forget to count KiwiSaver), if you're married, have had children, got divorced; if you have gold bars stashed under the floorboards or cash in the mattress that no one knows about; if you have a family heirloom stashed somewhere secret; or want all your money given to cat causes; you should have a will.
But about half of adult New Zealanders don't have a will, which Simpson describes as 'quite startling' when you think about how important it is.
About one in 10 people don't have a will when they die.
'I'd say there's an invincibility among younger New Zealanders, [who think] 'I don't need to think about it, it's not time yet'. We did some research recently and one in five people over 55 said it was just too emotionally hard to talk about it; they didn't want to talk about it with their loved ones, they didn't want to talk about it with us. It's just a big topic.
'It's a real shame because actually not doing it is a burden on your family. I like to think of writing a will as being the greatest gift you can give to people once you've gone.'
In today's podcast Simpson explains how to get the job done without even leaving the house, and goes through the vital stages in life where you need to write, and to update, your will.
*Names have been changed to protect the identities of children involved.
Check out how to listen to and follow The Detail here.
You can also stay up-to-date by liking us on Facebook or following us on Twitter.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
5 days ago
- Scoop
Response From Noel Leeming On Commerce Commission Charges
This morning the Commerce Commission has announced charges against Noel Leeming, below is our response which can be attributed to Jason Bell, Chief Operating Officer, Noel Leeming: "We're baffled by the Commerce Commission's decision to press charges. We firmly maintain that we have committed no offence and will vigorously defend this. We're perplexed by the Commission's claim that price matches were difficult to obtain, when over 250,000 Kiwis saved money with our Price Promise between 2019-2021. Our terms and conditions are fair and presented just like other retailers, and when we can't price match, we often don't get the sale. Price matching is widely used by the industry, and it helps drive competition, and without it, Kiwis will end up paying more. Our business is built on getting our customers the products they want, when they want them, and at the best possible prices. If we don't get something right, we work hard to ensure fair resolutions for our customers. Some of the additional matters raised by the Commission occurred during the Covid-19-pandemic, when all businesses experienced unprecedented pressure, and our team went to extraordinary lengths to help Kiwis access the products they needed, handling over ten million transactions. It is concerning that significant public resources and time have been spent on this matter for over three years, while overlooking more pressing potential harm to consumers from overseas online retailers operating outside of the rules. The system needs to evolve and hold all retailers selling to New Zealanders to the same standards of care.'
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Publican to pay up after employee assaulted over ducklings
Otira publican Lester Rowntree has been fined $26,000 after unsuccessfully appealing against an employee's unjustified dismissal, a move described by the judge as "an abuse of process". Last year, Rowntree was ordered by the Employment Relations Authority to pay former employee Johnny Wright $42,000 compensation and costs of $7500 after a 2018 assault at the Otira Stagecoach Hotel. The assault resulted in Mr Wright being hospitalised for eight days. It arose in a disagreement over the care of orphaned ducklings that Rowntree had saved. He had asked Mr Wright to look after them while he was away. The ducklings were kept in an old freezer. A jury trial in 2020 found Rowntree banged Mr Wright's head into the top of a freezer and pushed him to the floor. He successfully appealed that ruling and was found guilty instead of common assault at a judge-alone trial in June 2022 — although he was discharged without conviction. The alleged assault formed the basis of Mr Wright's claim of constructive dismissal in the Employment Relations Authority. The authority agreed Mr Wright was unjustifiably dismissed and ordered Rowntree to pay $34,000 in compensation plus $8424 in lost remuneration, $252 for a KiwiSaver contribution and costs of $7500. Rowntree's appeal said an assault did not take place and while Mr Wright did suffer some injuries at the hotel in November 2018, they resulted from Mr Wright falling while intoxicated. Employment Court Judge Kerry Smith said it was a difficult argument because Rowntree had been found guilty of the assault by a district court judge. Initially, he was charged with intent to injure, but the charge was amended to one of common assault and he was found guilty of the amended charge. For the appeal, Judge Smith said Rowntree had submitted a "significant volume" of material, not filed in advance as per case management direction, including photographs, medical information and a private investigator report. It was apparent the intent of the appeal was to revisit the decision made by Judge Peter Rollo in June 2022 and to obtain a judgement from the court that there was, in fact, no assault. The challenge was revisiting old ground to invite a different outcome, Judge Smith said. "This challenge is an impermissible collateral attack on Judge Rollo's judgement and it is, in that sense, an abuse of process. "If Mr Rowntree wants to have the judgement reconsidered, then the appropriate way to do that is by some sort of application to the district court, or possibly in the High Court." He accepted the authority was right to conclude there was a constructive dismissal consequent on Mr Wright having been assaulted at work. Rowntree's appeal was dismissed and a subsequent decision ordered him to pay Mr Wright's costs of $26,500. — Greymouth Star
Otago Daily Times
5 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Publican to pay costs in lost appeal
Otira publican Lester Rowntree has been fined $26,000 after unsuccessfully appealing against an employee's unjustified dismissal, a move described by the judge as "an abuse of process". Last year, Rowntree was ordered by the Employment Relations Authority to pay former employee Johnny Wright $42,000 compensation and costs of $7500 after a 2018 assault at the Otira Stagecoach Hotel. The assault resulted in Mr Wright being hospitalised for eight days. It arose in a disagreement over the care of orphaned ducklings that Rowntree had saved. He had asked Mr Wright to look after them while he was away. The ducklings were kept in an old freezer. A jury trial in 2020 found Rowntree banged Mr Wright's head into the top of a freezer and pushed him to the floor. He successfully appealed that ruling and was found guilty instead of common assault at a judge-alone trial in June 2022 — although he was discharged without conviction. The alleged assault formed the basis of Mr Wright's claim of constructive dismissal in the Employment Relations Authority. The authority agreed Mr Wright was unjustifiably dismissed and ordered Rowntree to pay $34,000 in compensation plus $8424 in lost remuneration, $252 for a KiwiSaver contribution and costs of $7500. Rowntree's appeal said an assault did not take place and while Mr Wright did suffer some injuries at the hotel in November 2018, they resulted from Mr Wright falling while intoxicated. Employment Court Judge Kerry Smith said it was a difficult argument because Rowntree had been found guilty of the assault by a district court judge. Initially, he was charged with intent to injure, but the charge was amended to one of common assault and he was found guilty of the amended charge. For the appeal, Judge Smith said Rowntree had submitted a "significant volume" of material, not filed in advance as per case management direction, including photographs, medical information and a private investigator report. It was apparent the intent of the appeal was to revisit the decision made by Judge Peter Rollo in June 2022 and to obtain a judgement from the court that there was, in fact, no assault. The challenge was revisiting old ground to invite a different outcome, Judge Smith said. "This challenge is an impermissible collateral attack on Judge Rollo's judgement and it is, in that sense, an abuse of process. "If Mr Rowntree wants to have the judgement reconsidered, then the appropriate way to do that is by some sort of application to the district court, or possibly in the High Court." He accepted the authority was right to conclude there was a constructive dismissal consequent on Mr Wright having been assaulted at work. Rowntree's appeal was dismissed and a subsequent decision ordered him to pay Mr Wright's costs of $26,500. — Greymouth Star
