Man fails to convince court his late sister’s home should go to him, not the Catholic Church

A man who claimed his late sister’s house was not being used in accordance with her last wishes has failed to convince the High Court that the property should instead go to him.

When devout Catholic Carol Morais​, 52, passed away on June 28, 2016, she directed in her will that her Bishopdale home be left to the Sisters of Mercy in Christchurch to be used for their benefit.

Morais stated she did not want the property to be sold and that if the Sisters of Mercy had no use for the house, it should be left to the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Christchurch Diocese “for the exclusive use of their canons”.

Should the diocese have no use for the property, the house was to go to Morais’ brother, Colin Anthony Fidelis Morais, “to keep for himself to delegate according to my wishes”.

READ MORE:
* Service to pay tribute to Sisters of Mercy’s long history in Blenheim
* Church sitting on property portfolio worth millions
* Churches fretting over proposed new heritage protection rules
* Churches slam council planning changes

When the Sisters of Mercy declined Morais’ gift of the house, the property was offered to the Catholic Church, which pledged to uphold the intent of Morais’ will.

According to a recently released High Court judgment, the diocese initially intended to use the property to house one of its priests. However, a number of priests to whom the property was offered were, for various reasons, unable to take up the opportunity.

After the property remained empty for a few months, the bishop offered it as rental accommodation to a young family while their new home was being built.

This generated a rental of $400 a week that went into the bishop’s general account and was used, in part, to fund housing for retired priests.

When Morais’ brother, Colin Morais, became aware of this in March 2021, he began proceedings against the executors.

Colin Morais claimed the gift of the property to the diocese was a “contingent gift that had not been perfected”.

He claimed the property was given to the church for the “exclusive use” of its canons and, since the house was not being exclusively used by them, it should be given to him.

The executors and the diocese opposed Colin Morais’ interpretation of the will, saying that Carol Morais’ wish was that the property be given absolutely to the bishop, albeit with the accompanying wishes that it be used for the purposes of the Catholic Church and not sold.

Justice Cameron Mander disagreed with Colin Morais that the term “exclusive use” placed a restriction on how the diocese could use the property.

He said Carol Morais’ use of “exclusive” was to reserve the benefit of the house to a particular group, not a particular use of the property.

The judge referred to separate documents in possession of Carol Morais’ lawyer, in which she expressed her strong desire that the Catholic Church should benefit from her home, that it should not be sold, and that she did not want her brother to receive it.

“You must do your very best for the property to go to the Sisters of Mercy or the Catholic Diocese of Christchurch. I do not wish for Colin to have this property. I have many reasons, most of which are known to you all,” Carol Morais wrote.

She went on to express her wish that her pet cat and a collection of soft toys and a doll remain with the house if possible. She also requested that a photograph of her mother and father be kept and displayed somewhere in the house “to honour them”.

“Especially in the time of my mother’s life, the house was a house of prayer, peace and sanctity. I strongly wish for that to continue.”

Justice Mander said the evidence showed that the diocese had sought to adhere to Carol Morais’ wishes by using the property to benefit its priests.

He dismissed Colin Morais’ application for a declaratory judgment.