Latest news with #AdministrationAct
Scoop
3 days ago
- Business
- Scoop
What Happens If My Partner Dies Without A Will?
, Money Correspondent Got questions? RNZ is launching a new podcast, No Stupid Questions with Susan Edmunds, next month. We'd love to hear more of your questions about money and the economy. You can send through written questions, like these ones, but - even better - you can drop us a voice memo to our email questions@ What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies without a will? I have been living with my partner since the late 1980s. Our house, main bank accounts and one car are in both names. Our latest car - bought last year from joint bank accounts - could only be registered in his name, due to changes in NZTA rules. I have a separate bank account in my name, which has a small amount of inherited money. He also has a separate bank account with some money from his family and a few shares in his name, which were acquired through his work. Many years ago, I was told that if either of us died, then any assets in joint names would go to the surviving partner. We have not made wills, have no children, my parents have both died and his father has died, but recently, I saw that if someone has a spouse or partner, and parents, but no children, the spouse received the personal effects, $155,000 and two-thirds of what is left. The deceased person's parents get the remaining third. That means, if I die first, all I have goes to him, which is what I want, but if my partner dies before me, does his remaining parent inherit a third of our house (meaning I will need to sell it, as I do not have funds to buy her out in my 60s), plus a third of our two cars, a third of our joint bank account money, and a third of his KiwiSaver, private superannuation, bank accounts, insurance payouts and shares in his name? His mother is in residential care with dementia and already has enough funds to cover her care for decades. I am worried I may become homeless. What is the situation with joint property and joint bank accounts, when someone dies? As a starting point, it might be re-assuring to note that assets that you hold in a joint name would pass to you, so if you own your house jointly, it would be yours, if your partner died. I went to Public Trust principal trustee Michelle Pope for more detail to answer the rest of your question. She said, when someone died, their estate would be distributed according to the Administration Act. "In the writer's case, if they die first without a will, their entire estate would pass to their partner, as they have no children or surviving parents," she said. "Assets held in joint names, listed by the writer as the house, main bank accounts and a car, will automatically pass to the surviving partner. However, it's important to confirm whether the property is legally owned jointly or in equal/unequal shares. "If it's jointly owned, it will pass by survivorship. If not, the deceased's share will need to be administered as part of their estate, which can add complexity. "If the writer's partner dies first without a will and has a surviving parent, Section 77(3) of the Administration Act 1969 applies. In this scenario, the writer would receive all personal chattels (including the car solely owned by the partner), a prescribed amount of $155,000 plus interest and two-thirds of the remaining estate. "The surviving parent would receive the remaining one-third of the estate. For clarity, the assets owned solely by the partner would appear to be a bank account, some shares, KiwiSaver, private superannuation and insurance. "Given the house is owned jointly, the writer can expect that the house will pass to them by what's called 'survivorship' in legal language and will not form part of their partner's estate. "It goes without saying that I'd encourage the writer and their partner to create wills. A will that clearly outlines their wishes can help remove any uncertainty when a person dies and can make the estate administration process a lot easier for loved ones." Having separated earlier this year, I chose to move out of the family home where my ex still resides. She is paying the mortgage, refuses to pay the house insurance or rates etc. the roof is leaking and she refuses to agree to making repairs, the ceiling is now ruined and mouldy. Though she has indicated she wishes to buy me out, she has not shared any form of offer or plan. She now refuses to engage in any form of correspondence at all. My questions - how do I go about necessary repairs to the house and how do I get her to move out, so that the house can be sold? Online research seems to point to tenancy/landlord situations which don't apply in this case. Is it actually just time for a lawyer to sort this out? Yes, I think the best - and really only - way to deal with this is to go to a lawyer as soon as possible. Can you please answer some questions about the way supermarkets operate. If I deliberately deceive customers, it's called deception. If I deliberately load, unload prices to make you think you are getting a better deal when you are not, this is manipulation to enhance your profit. Surely both of the above are profiteering and fraudulent. Supermarkets - and all retailers - have rules they have to comply with, when it comes to discounting, and it is illegal for businesses to mislead shoppers about prices. You can complain to the Commerce Commission, if you think someone has got it wrong. There is a lot of focus on supermarket pricing at the moment and Consumer NZ has been vocal about the current regime not being effective enough. It is calling for tougher penalties and infringement notice powers.
Sky News AU
18-06-2025
- Business
- Sky News AU
High Court unanimously rejects CFMEU's legal challenge against Albanese government over forced administration
The High Court has thrown out the CFMEU's legal challenge against the government over its forced administration. The Construction and General Division of the CFMEU was embroiled in controversy last year after damning reports by Nine-owned newspapers claimed the union was riddled with criminal activity. Labor pushed through laws with the Coalition to force the CFMEU into administration in August, however the union launched a legal challenge. The CFMEU claimed the government had breached the separation of powers, it had acted unconstitutionally and that it infringed on the implied freedom of political communication. The full bench of the High Court ruled against the union's bid in a blow for the old regime of the CFMEU. Master Builders Association chief executive Denita Wawn said the ruling was critical for weeding out "bad actors" from the construction industry. 'We can now get on with the job of making the building and construction industry a lawful one. We commend the Albanese government for pursuing this administration from day one and defending the act,' Wawn said. 'The time now comes for all stakeholders to recognise a union for the building construction workers is important, but it has to be lawful. "We now need to turn to the safety and wellbeing of all of those in the building and construction industry to ensure that everyone is playing by the book, they're following the law, and we get rid of bad actors out of the industry once and for all.' She also called for further action to stamp out corruption within the construction sector. "More needs to be done," Ms Wawn said. "We've seen a huge amount of evidence since the Administration Act came into place about the ingrained problems of illegal activity in this country." Australian Constructors Association CEO Jon Davies said the ruling provided "much-needed clarity" for the construction industry which suffers productivity challenges and financial strains. 'This decision provides clarity for everyone in the industry, particularly employers and employees,' said Mr Davies. 'It clears the way for the administrator to take full control of the union and ensure the CFMEU and all its officers operate within the law.' Newly appointed Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Amanda Rishworth said the decision gave administrator Mark Irving confidence that he can properly undergo his job. "Construction workers deserve a union free from criminality, corruption and violence," Ms Rishworth said in a statement. "The Administrator and his team can now move forward with confidence and continue their essential work in cleaning up the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. "We are committed to the Administrator remaining in place until the job is done, and we will continue to provide him and his team with all necessary support as they undertake their challenging and crucial task." After the CFMEU was rocked with allegations of corruption in July, the government moved to place the construction and general division of the union into administration, but had to force this after it failed to consent to one. About 270 union officials, including the leadership of the NSW, Queensland and Victorian divisions, were shown the door following the administrative action.
