Option A, Option B

The background of Rimmer v Wilton is summarised at [1] of the Supreme Court decision as follows:

The decision of the Supreme Court is that as stated at [75] “… Ms Wilton is not entitled to receive
a further share of the Moumoukai Road property under the provisions of the Administration Act. Under the Agreement, she accepted entitlement to a life interest in Mr Rimmer’s share of the Moumoukai Road property and no more. She promised not to claim, and accordingly to disclaim, any beneficial interest in his share of
that property.”

Accordingly, she was not also entitled to benefit from his intestacy.

References:

• Rimmer v Wilton [2026] NZSC 122
• Rimmer v Wilton [2023] NZHC 1372
• Rimmer v Wilton (administrator of the estate of Rimmer) [2025] NZCA 374
• MR [2026] NZSC 122 (PDF, 262 KB)
• SC 97/2025 Nigel David Rimmer and Anor v Carolyn Mary Wilton as Administrator of the Estate of David Rimmer (Recorded, 17 March 2026)