The Hillary house
March 29th, 2009 at 7:54 am by David FarrarOh Good God. The HoS reports:
The future of Sir Edmund Hillary’s home is uncertain, amid family fears that it may be bulldozed by its new owners, and the mountaineer’s Himalayan pine chopped down.
Sir Edmund’s daughter Sarah Hillary said she would be saddened if the house was knocked down.
“I would prefer if someone lived there happily but I can’t control what happens,” she said.
Yes you could have. If you wanted to control what happens, you could have either not sold it, gifted it to a museum or placed a convenant on it restricting future owners. Of course that would mean less money.
But with all due respect you don’t pocket the money, and then start complaining about what a new owner may or may not do.
No tag for this post.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:07 am
“But with all due respect you don’t pocket the money, and then start complaining about what a new owner may or may not do.”
Vote:Well said David.
Note that the important word in that sentence “owner”.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:23 am
That’s Kiwi as.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Faux outrage alert.
It’s hardly a vociferous complaint. She will have been approached by the media for comment and made a hardly surprising one clearly stating the matter was out of her control but expressing a personal view. Hell, I’d rather no one ever redeveloped the bar where I snogged a celeb but life moves on…
Lighten up for crissakes…
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:32 am
Youch, nice neighbourhood!
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 8:37 am
you may well be right paul, in which case the correct response would be, hey we’ve sold the house, it belongs to someone else now, perhaps you should ask them. Which to be fair is probably what she did.
Ed Hillary was a person, not a house, this whole issue is bloody stupid.
Its like the Katherine Mansfield birthplace house in Wellington. Someone who hated NZ and couldnt get out fast enough was born in Thorndon and lived there a couple of years before she would have been capable of remembering anything, so the house becomes “iconic”
its an interesting restoration of a victorian villa, but hardly significant or formative.
Perhaps someone should buy the Davis/ Clark “lovenest” in Mt Albert and gift it to the nation, as the place where the cardie wearing “progressives” plotted the downfall of an entire country to put on the CV for a UN junket.
Or maybe just so we can hold an exorcism?
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:05 am
…or perhaps people should have their coffee in the morning, before venting their spleen here.
Look – it’s Sarah Hillary’s family home. It has years and years of memories and emotion attached to it. If there is anyone out there who can, with blithe equanimity, accept the potential destruction of the home their parents spent years and years living in and in which you spent large parts of your childhood, then either you are bordering on the sociopathic (“emotions don’t matter! It’s property rights that really are important!”) or had a somewhat unhappy childhood. So, yes, the only reason the HoS gives a shit about this is because of Sir Ed mania, but c’mon … it’s a bit weak to whale on his daughter for, you know, being human.
Couple of other points. She isn’t trying to stop the house being knocked down, simply saying this would make her unhappy (note the comment “I can’t control what happens”?). And it wasn’t her house to sell – it would have been inherited by Lady Hillary on Sir Ed’s death. So we’ve no idea whether she would have sold, had she the option.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:11 am
I believe I heard mention at the time that the house would have to be sold under the terms of the will (i.e. perhaps it was left to a bunch of people, none of whom could afford to buy the others out).
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:15 am
In fairness to the family, their hands were tied. Sir Edmund’s will (according to family comments) made various bequests to charitable organisations and these bequests could only be fulfilled by selling the house. Moreover it is probable that one or more charitable organisations were residuary beneficiaries (the ones who share the residue of the estate once expenses and specific bequests have been paid out). In this case the executors of the will, in the absence of any specific direction concerning the house, had no option but to sell the house for the maximum possible price. If the executors imposed limitations on the sale (eg covenants) that reduced its sale price they would be breaching their fiduciary duty and would be exposed to legal action by the residuary beneficiaries for the assessed shortfall in sale price. Also, in this regard, the trustees of charities also have their hands tied and have a fiduciary obligation as trustees to ensure they receive the due bequest. This includes taking legal action if it has a reasonable chance of success even though such legal action could be perceived as being ‘tacky’. The trustees would have no mandate to release the executors from the obligation of paying out such bequests.
I would say that there is little doubt that Sir Edmund would have preferred to see the property sold for top price and the proceeds go to his favourite charities. Otherwise he would have framed his will differently.
If the community wished to preserve the house the community should have fronted up at the auction with the money.
I will stick my neck out and say that DPF ought to award himself 10 demerits for his blog making unfair comments with respect to the family.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:16 am
I am sure if the Hillary family felt that strongly they could have kept the house in the family as we did in my family. Sarah Hillary is ramping up public opinion against demolishing the house, but she is happy to take the money. The decision about keeping the house or not, lay with the Hillary family, they chose to sell it so presumably they do not care that much about it.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:26 am
“And it wasn’t her house to sell – it would have been inherited by Lady Hillary on Sir Ed’s death”
I’m just guessing but I could imagine Sir Ed’s will may be like the wills of many other older men, where the assume they have full title over the matrimonial assets. Of course the law has changed and many wills are outdated in that respect.
Vote:I’ve been in a situation where the instructions of a will were considered out of respect for the deceased, more than any legal obligation
March 29th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Patrick,
See peterwn’s post at 9:15 am … it covers your point fully.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:42 am
Sarah Hillary is more than likely a socialist, her father was a socialist who was more than happy to use his “fame” as the first, second or more than likely third person to climb Mt Everest to further the cause of the Labour party and in particular Helen bloody Klark.
In typical socialist fashion she wants the best of both worlds, if she did not want it demolished or altered then she should have bloody well kept it.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Ahhh, that’s it – thanks BB. The earlier criticism was really about Hillary’s politics. Now I understand the over-the-top reaction…
Some people never let up, never know when to prosecute their point and when to simple STFU…
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:51 am
AG – thanks
similar point, but I imagine the laymans version is easier to understand. (certainer shorter and cheaper)
The point I’m making is they probably cannot hide too far behind the wishes of the will
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Stories like this will just get the average Labour voter all excited in an uninformed way. You know what they’re like about private property and nationalising everything. The Hillarys were given a choice and they chose to take the money and run… so they have as much say as I do about the house…. nada.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
In response to various postings:
1. We do not know full details of his will or other arrangements within the family. The family has indicated that he left significant sums to charities and that it was necessary to sell the property to meet this requirement. This needs to be taken at face value.
2. Even if half the value of the house remained within the family, buying out the deceased’s half may have been a burden which the family was unable or not prepared to bear, especially as it was most probably a hefty 6 figure sum. This attitude needs to be fully respected. His widow might have been able to wield the Relationships Property Act against the estate but could have chosen not to if it were to the detriment to the charities due to benefit. In any event she may have been hard pressed to buy out the deceased’s half if that became the situation.
3. On this basis it is totally unfair to criticise Sir Edmund for making an ‘old fashioned’ will (assuming that he did in any case) or to criticise the family for ‘letting go’ the house.
4. With regard to property and finances, the executors are obliged to follow the wishes of the deceased and the law – if they do not they can be sued and it comes out of their pockets. If all beneficiaries unaminously agree, then the executor can act in accordance with their collective wishes. However charities who are beneficiaries in general cannot so agree, their trustees’ duties are to the beneficiaries of the charity. With regard to the deceased’s body, it is not property so different considerations apply. For example even if the deceased willed organs for transplants, close relatives must agree.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Is anyone going to mention thats Eds will required that it be sold?
Slick research there DPF.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
“On this basis it is totally unfair to criticise Sir Edmund for making an ‘old fashioned’ will (assuming that he did in any case)”
Im sorry, but I fail to see where anyone has done this?
I think the point that has been made is that Sir Ed wishes have been met. If he wanted to leave the house to his wife and family he could have done that. If he wanted to house to become a museum he could have done that as well. If he left vast sums of money to some charities, that required his wife to sell the house to pay them Im sure he would have realised that
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Same as Uphams medals, he could have done what he wanted with them and he did, he left them to his kids.
Amazing how many people appeared who “knew” what he wanted to happen with them.
Significance aside, its still just a house. Otherwise there’d be a little bit of bromze in it saying you have to ask if you want to change anything on this building.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Maybe since the National party is so fond of banning things they would make a law that bans all non kiwiblog approved media statements, or at least provide “what they really mean when they say this” foot notes?
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
To be fair the answer from the Sarah Hillary was qualified and may simply have been in response to a journalist enquiry.
Although the point about ownership is valid.
Vote:March 29th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
It would probably meet the criteria for scheduling as a historic building in the Auckland City District Plan. A building requires 50 points to make the grade: you get 40 points for an intimate connection with a person of national significance, a few more for its good condition and I think even the architect was fairly well known.
Good luck talking council into it though.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Hey look racer talking shit, must be a day ending in a y.
Please list the things this national goverment has banned racer. You may use a matchbook to answer on if you wish.
Vote:March 30th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Hows your day going murray, hope your knuckles aren’t to rubbed raw from dragging them on the ground all day.
In much the same spirit of much of the bleating on this blog, and in the spirit of DPF’s greens ban list. National approves the ban of everything that is banned as contained in the law. Easy.
As for spelling, I’m not really one to be tidy when taking shits in a sewer.
PS, have fun playing dress ups this weekend.
Vote: