News and views

As we begin to look at 2016, the year that was, Clayton v Clayton will go down in the history books as one of the most significant legal happenings of the year - and one of the most defining cases in New Zealand relationship property and trust law history.

As they say, prevention tends to be better than the cure, so let’s take a look at one of the most pragmatic preventative legal measures you can take to safeguard your future – robust asset protection.

We’ve been bringing you a fair bit of info lately on Wills, and how this seemingly simplest of documents can end up bursting open the proverbial can of worms – especially if it’s poorly drafted and the person leaving the will doesn’t understand they have often onerous obligations, even in death.

The feedback’s continuing to roll in around our family law specialist, Gillian Stuart, and her series of interesting legal facts that’s been running in The Messenger. Earlier in the year, Off the Record ran Gillian’s first 10 facts. And now, by popular demand, we’re delighted to bring you Numbers 11 to 15.

All legal eyes are glued to a landmark case that’s set down to be heard in the Supreme Court early next month – and its significance is such that anyone with a trust would do well to take a keen interest in, too.

As many New Zealanders know, a family trust is a legal way to hold and protect your assets for you and your family for the future. The assets (properties/investments) will be owned by the trust rather than by a person, and they are managed by trustees. The trustees are usually family members but could be a professional person like a lawyer or accountant.

​Have you ever considered that one day you might not be able to make decisions about business or family matters due to incapacitation? It pays to be prepared for a time when you might not understand the nature and consequences of decisions and/or the ability to communicate these decisions.

We advisors, who specialise in trusts, had felt for some time the days of assets being cleanly ring-fenced and largely taken out of the equation for rest home subsidy assessments were closing.