'Reclusive' son's $300k inheritance distributed 'as if he doesn't exist'
Friday, 17 March 2023
A man is set to lose his inheritance of $300,000 because he hasn’t answered any letters advising him of the money.
New Zealander David Glue, who leads a “reclusive life” in his London council flat, was left the money by his father Ian who died in 2009.
Since then, the trustee of the estate, Tauranga lawyer Bill Holland, has been trying to contact him to advise him of his entitlement and get his bank account details in order to pay him, but has had no reply.
Despite “considerable enquiries”, Glue had not responded to Holland’s correspondence, the court heard.
On-site professional investigation established he likely still resided at the address, which was understood to be local authority housing. Court documents revealed there was “a suggestion David may consider any entitlement under the estates to disqualify his tenancy”.
The last letter dated August 2022 was couriered to the address and informed him of his entitlement to $300,000.
Glue’s address was given to Holland by Glue's brother John, who described him as “a bit reclusive”. John Glue, who had received the other half of his father’s estate, died in 2019.
**READ MORE:
* Family row over haulage magnate's multimillion-dollar estate
* I just came into some money, where should I put it for the next few years?
* Judge allows daughter's claim to divide $20 million estate
**
With no reply from David Glue, and despite the fact he is not missing, in February, Holland made an application to the High Court under section 136 of the Trusts Act 2019, seeking an order authorising him to distribute the estates as if the Glues’ son, David, “does not exist”, according to a decision released this month.
On March 10, High Court Judge Jagose considered whether the money should be held by the Crown, in case Glue eventually came forward to claim it, or whether it could be given to his brother John’s relatives.
Judge Jagose was satisfied that Holland had taken reasonable measures to contact Glue, but the question remained whether any claim by Glue as a beneficiary could be disregarded.
Jagose’s initial view, in a minute recorded March 6, was that as Glue “decidedly is not missing” and recognising his possible reason not to claim the money at present, the money should be transferred to the Crown, leaving Glue the opportunity to claim his entitlement “if ever he cared to do so”.
In a sworn affidavit dated March 8, Holland said he strongly believed Glue’s parents, Margaret and Ian Glue, would not have wanted half of their estate to go to the Crown, and that they would rather it go to John Glue’s beneficiaries.
Holland had known Glue’s parents since he was in high school, as they were neighbours of his parents. Holland’s father had acted for the Glues until 1978, and he had also acted for the Glues for a long time.
Jagose accepted Holland’s opinion, and noted also that John Glue’s beneficiaries did not appear “untoward in any manner”.
Satisfied that David Glue’s claim to the money may be disregarded, the judge authorised Holland to distribute the money “as if David Glue does not exist”.
How it works
The courts can make an order to distribute a missing beneficiary’s shares only if it is satisfied that reasonable measures have been taken to inform the beneficiary; at least 60 days have passed since the last of those measures was taken; and no potential beneficiary has come foreword.