All of Libby Glass’s wealth was instead left to her husband, Denver Glass, and to charities.
Now one of Libby’s daughters, Lisa Knight, has taken to court to fight for a stake in her mother’s estate, claiming she was guaranteed at least $1 million.
Supreme Court Justice Rachel Dunningham considered the request and granted Lisa permission to file an application for division of the estate.
The December verdict on the property war tells the sad story of a blended family crippled by broken relationships within.
Libby and Denver, from Christchurch, married in 1987 and were each other’s second marriage. Although they never had children together, they each brought children from their first marriages to the union.
Denver had four children and Libby had three: Nicole, Lisa, and Stephen.
When the couple first got together, Denver owned a house in Yaldhurst, Christchurch, – it was the property he kept when he divorced his first wife. The newlyweds lived there until they sold it in 1995.
In the decades that followed, Denver’s meatpacking businesses prospered and Libby established a fashion boutique in Merivale known as Posh of Holmwood.
The pair built a significant asset base through Denver’s businesses and by acquiring, renovating and selling lavish homes of character in Christchurch.
Some of those properties included the Greystones, Banks Avenue; the historic Daresbury Manor House; and a homestead at Racecourse Hill, Darfield.
Libby and Denver lived in the properties while refurbishing them, drawing on Libby’s passion for interior design. They also owned vacation homes in Akaroa. Each time they bought a new home, a trust was set up to own the property.
After the Christchurch earthquakes, the couple created a plan for their estate, which the decision said was worth at least $20 million at the time of Libby’s death in 2020.
As stated in the court document, Denver acknowledged that he and Libby planned to give each child $1 million over their lifetime, in lieu of an inheritance.
“They intended to use the money to purchase single-family homes, or to pay off loans for such homes, and that the property acquired would then constitute an inheritance for each of their children’s family units.”
The balance left after helping their children was to enable Libby and Denver to live comfortably and then, after their deaths, to benefit charitable causes.
In their mutual will, executed in 2018, Libby bequeathed her assets to Denver to distribute to her children “at her own discretion” in accordance with wishes she had expressed to him before she died.
She noted in her will that, other than personal property, she deliberately made no financial provision for her children or grandchildren, or Denver’s, because the family was “sufficiently provided” through family trusts and personally by her.
Lisa’s sister Nicole supported her Supreme Court claim, while their brother, Stephen, did not.
Nicole confirmed that their mother had promised that each child would receive at least $1 million in advance.
But actually, the money had not been donated directly to the children, but was instead invested in Libby and Denver real estate for the children to live in.
Nicole, who fell out with Denver and Libby in the years leading up to Libby’s death, occupied a house in Australia with help from the couple and Stephen had a house bought for him in Christchurch.
Lisa and her children were given an $800,000 home, also in Christchurch, for which she covered the cost of rates, insurance, repairs, and maintenance.
“[Lisa] agreed that it would be placed in a trust, with Libby and Denver as two of the three trustees, though she understood the house would be hers when Libby and Denver died,” the decision said.
But when Lisa and her then-fiancée bought a house together in 2017, Lisa wanted to sell the property in Christchurch to free up her capital.
Denver refused to sell the Christchurch property unless he was registered as the owner of their new home.
According to the decision, Lisa could not contribute to the purchase price of their new home and so the couple was “forced” to sell it at a loss.
To evade financial scrutiny, Lisa later negotiated a change in the ownership structure of the Christchurch home.
She received a substantial payment in exchange for her removal as a beneficiary of the trust that administered the house and agreeing not to make any claims against Libby’s estate.
But now, Lisa said at the time, she felt powerless to negotiate the terms of the new agreement.
“I had no money, a minimal income, five children to support, a dilapidated house to live in and a history of broken promises,” she told the court.
Lisa continued that after Libby’s death, she and Denver, who have opposed her application to the court, have begun new negotiations for the Christchurch home.
She asked him to fulfill her mother’s promise that the house was hers, but said that this did not happen.
Lisa rebels against her lack of control over the property and has stopped paying the rates, insurance and other expenses related to the house.
Stephen told the court he was “appalled” by his sister’s claim to their mother’s estate.
While she claimed to have comforted Libby, who was diagnosed with dementia in 2018, in her final months, Stephen said Lisa’s relationship with their mother was strained and she actually cut Libby off two years before she died.
Justice Dunningham said the claim to Libby’s estate was less straightforward than others the court had heard.
Libby and Denver had been pooling their assets for some time, and it was unclear how much Libby had contributed to their millions.
But the judge said there was clearly a “major gap” between the wealth Libby and Denver amassed during their lifetimes and what Lisa received as a direct provision from her mother.
She said it would be a “grave injustice” to Lisa if she couldn’t make a claim, and so granted her permission to do so.
– By Tara Shaskey
Open Justice multimedia journalist