This content was prepared by Holland Beckett and is being published by The New Zealand Herald as Advertorial.
By Rebecca Steens, Rebecca Savage and Leesa Speed of Holland Beckett
A recent Supreme Court decision has delivered one of the most important estate planning lessons New Zealand families have seen in years.
The case, Rimmer v Wilton [2026] NZSC 122, highlights a problem that many people do not realise exists: a relationship property agreement and an estate plan are not separate exercises. If they are not carefully co-ordinated, the consequences can be expensive, unexpected, and deeply divisive for families.
The dispute
David Rimmer died without a Will. He was survived by his long-term de facto partner, Carolyn Wilton, and two adult children from an earlier relationship. Mr Rimmer and Ms Wilton had entered into a contracting out agreement under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.
The Supreme Court had to decide whether Ms Wilton could receive both the benefits provided by that agreement and further benefits under the intestacy rules. The Court of Appeal said yes. The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that the wording of the agreement meant Ms Wilton had contracted out of any further entitlement from the estate.
The practical lesson
A contracting out agreement commonly addresses what happens to property if a relationship ends. A Will addresses what happens to a person’s assets when they die. Clients often assume those documents will naturally work together. They may not.
Where there is no Will, or a Will has not been reviewed after a contracting out agreement is signed, default statutory rules may produce an outcome neither partner intended. The risk is particularly acute for blended families, people entering later relationships, and families with businesses, farms, orchards, investment property or trusts.
These families often need to balance competing objectives: protecting children from an earlier relationship, providing security for a partner, preserving family assets and reducing the risk of future disputes. A contracting out agreement may be part of the solution, but it cannot be considered in isolation.
Problems commonly arise where someone has a contracting out agreement but no Will, or where documents have not been reviewed after a new relationship, marriage, separation, significant asset changes or the establishment of a trust. Separation alone does not automatically revoke a Will. Business ownership, shareholder agreements, trusts and succession arrangements may also affect what an estate plan achieves.
What should people do?
The answer is not necessarily to sign new documents immediately. The better course is a co-ordinated review of the Will, contracting out agreement, asset ownership, trust arrangements and executor or trustee appointments. Each document should support one coherent succession strategy.
Rimmer v Wilton is a reminder that modern estate planning involves more than preparing a Will. Relationship property planning, Wills, trusts and business succession must be considered together and reviewed when circumstances change. Otherwise, the eventual outcome may be determined by statutory defaults or the courts rather than the family’s intentions.