Most couples who sign a contracting out agreement are thinking about separation. A recent Supreme Court decision, Rimmer v Wilton [2026] NZSC 122, is a reminder that the same agreement can also decide what your partner receives from your estate.

What happened

David Rimmer and Carolyn Wilton were in a de facto relationship from 2000 and owned their Hūnua home as tenants in common in equal shares. In 2002 they signed an agreement under section 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. It kept each partner's share of the property separate, gave the survivor the right to live in the home for life, bound their estates, and stated that it was in "full and final settlement of all claims" each might have against the other.

Mr Rimmer died in 2016 without a will. His estate included about $150,000 in cash and investments, his personal belongings and his half share of the house, which later sold for $1.2 million.

Ms Wilton relied on the agreement to keep her own half share and her life interest in Mr Rimmer's share. She also claimed the benefits a surviving partner receives on intestacy under the Administration Act 1969: the personal chattels, the prescribed amount of $155,000 and one third of the rest of the estate. Mr Rimmer's children objected.

What the Supreme Court decided

The Court unanimously found for the children. Three points matter for anyone with a contracting out agreement or a partner.

First, a section 21 agreement can exclude a surviving partner's intestacy entitlements. Nothing in the legislation prevents a couple from agreeing in advance what the survivor will, and will not, receive on death.

Second, this agreement did exactly that. The phrase "all claims" covered Ms Wilton's statutory claim on intestacy. Read as a whole, the agreement preserved each partner's ownership of their own share and gave the survivor a life interest in the other's share. It did not allow the survivor to take a further beneficial interest in that share through intestacy.

Third, the outcome turned on the wording of this particular agreement. Choosing "Option B" (taking under the will or intestacy rather than applying for a division of relationship property) does not by itself prevent a partner from relying on a contracting out agreement. Nor does it revive an entitlement the partner has agreed to give up. And nothing stopped Mr Rimmer from leaving property to Ms Wilton by will. He simply never made one.

What this means for you

If you have a contracting out agreement, it may already govern what your partner receives when you die, whether or not that was front of mind when you signed it. If you do not have a will, the Administration Act will decide who inherits, and your agreement may cut across those default rules in ways you did not intend.

The practical lesson is that a contracting out agreement and a will need to be prepared together and reviewed together. If you want your partner to receive more than the agreement provides, that needs to be done deliberately, by will or by a lifetime transfer. If you want the agreement to be the final word, the drafting should say so clearly.

If you have a contracting out agreement and are unsure how it sits alongside your will, or you have no will at all, we can review both and make sure they work together.

This article is general information only and is not legal advice. Please contact us for advice on your own circumstances.

Get in touch