ROPATI v ROPATI AND JOSEPH ROPATI [2016] NZHC 1642

ROPATI v ROPATI AND JOSEPH ROPATI [2016] NZHC 1642

On construction of the Addendum and surrounding facts the court concluded the parties intended the priority payments as expressed: the reference to "$10,000 each" in clause 3(a) was not shown to be a drafting mistake to be corrected to $5,000 each; the $39,347.67 paid by Peter is repayable (either as part of the $40,000 refurbishment advance in cl 1/3(b) or, alternatively, as a debt recoverable under cl 6 of the will). Accordingly the executors were authorised to pay the identified priority sums from estate funds and to meet their legal costs from the estate; costs between the parties were apportioned as ordered.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1642
Parties
Applicant in CIV 2015 404 2199; First Named Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Sosene John Ropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2199; Applicant in CIV 2015 404 2419; Executor/trustee: Peter Ropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2199; Applicant in CIV 2015 404 2419; Executor/trustee: Joseph Ropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Tony Blanc; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Feuropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Feagiaisusan Ropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Faatea Ropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Iva Lewis Ropati; Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419: Romi Leone Ropati
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Originating Applications Concerning Administration of Estate and Directions to Executors Under the Trustee Act 1956 / Hearing and Judgment (application for Directions and Ancillary Disclosure/costs)
Outcome
Executors' application for directions granted in part; executors authorised to pay specified priority sums from estate; disclosure ordered earlier by Palmer J complied with; costs allocated as set out.
Legal Topics
Directions to Trustees, Payment of Priority Sums From Estate, Interpretation of Deed and Addendum, Executor Duties and Disclosure to Beneficiaries, Costs Orders
Trusts and Estates Succession Law Trustee Law Property Law Civil Procedure Directions to Trustees Payment of Priority Sums From Estate Interpretation of Deed and Addendum +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sosene John Ropati

Applicant in CIV 2015 404 2199; First Named Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Peter Ropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2199; Applicant in CIV 2015 404 2419; Executor/trustee

Joseph Ropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2199; Applicant in CIV 2015 404 2419; Executor/trustee

Tony Blanc

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Feuropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Feagiaisusan Ropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Faatea Ropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Iva Lewis Ropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Romi Leone Ropati

Respondent in CIV 2015 404 2419

Procedural Posture

Originating Applications Concerning Administration of Estate and Directions to Executors Under the Trustee Act 1956 / Hearing and Judgment (application for Directions and Ancillary Disclosure/costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sums claimed by executors are payable as priority sums under the Addendum/clause 5 of the will
  2. 2 Whether reference to "$10,000 each" in clause 3(a) of the Addendum is a drafting mistake and should be $5,000 each
  3. 3 Whether the $39,347.67 advanced by Peter is repayable under clause 1/3(b) of the Addendum or as a debt under clause 6 of the will

Ratio Decidendi

On construction of the Addendum and surrounding facts the court concluded the parties intended the priority payments as expressed: the reference to "$10,000 each" in clause 3(a) was not shown to be a drafting mistake to be corrected to $5,000 each; the $39,347.67 paid by Peter is repayable (either as part of the $40,000 refurbishment advance in cl 1/3(b) or, alternatively, as a debt recoverable under cl 6 of the will). Accordingly the executors were authorised to pay the identified priority sums from estate funds and to meet their legal costs from the estate; costs between the parties were apportioned as ordered.

Court Disposition

Executors' application for directions granted in part; executors authorised to pay specified priority sums from estate; disclosure ordered earlier by Palmer J complied with; costs allocated as set out.

Orders

  • Direction that executors may pay from the estate the following liabilities: $74,347.67 to Peter Ropati, $15,000 to Joseph Ropati, $6,480 to Romi Ropati and $20,000 to Faatea Ropati
  • Executors may pay from the estate their legal costs in both proceedings shown in the intituling