A woman who with her husband amassed a fortune of at least $20 million, promised her three adult children a future of financial security - but not a cent was left to them when she died.

All of Libby Glass’ riches were instead left to her husband, Denver Glass, and to charities.

Now, one of Libby’s daughters, Lisa Knight, has turned to the court to fight for a stake in her mother’s estate, claiming she had been guaranteed at least $1m.

High Court Justice Rachel Dunningham heard the application and granted Lisa leave to bring a claim for division of the estate.

The December judgment on the property relationship war tells the sad tale of a blended family crippled by broken relationships within.

Tying the knot in 1987, Libby and Denver, of Christchurch, were each other’s second marriage. While they never had children together, they each brought to the union children from their first marriage.

Denver had four children and Libby had three: Nicole, Lisa and Stephen.

When the couple first got together, Denver owned a home in Yaldhurst, Christchurch, - it being the property he retained when he separated from his first wife. The newlyweds lived there until they sold it in 1995.

In the decades that followed, Denver’s meat processing businesses flourished and Libby established a fashion boutique in Merivale known as Posh of Holmwood.

The High Court has heard the application made for leave to bring a claim for division of the estate. Photo / File

The couple built up a sizeable asset base through Denver’s businesses as well as through acquiring, renovating and selling opulent Christchurch character houses.

Some of those properties included the Greystones, Banks Avenue; the historic mansion Daresbury; and a homestead at Racecourse Hill, Darfield.

Libby and Denver lived in the properties while doing them up, using Libby’s passion for interior design. They also owned holiday homes in Akaroa. Each time they purchased a new house a trust was set up to own the property.

Following the Christchurch earthquakes, the couple created a plan for their estate, which the decision said was worth at least $20m at the time of Libby’s death in 2020.

As noted in the court document, Denver acknowledged he and Libby planned to give each child $1m during their lifetimes, instead of an inheritance.

“They intended the money would be used to acquire family homes, or to pay off borrowing on such homes, and that the property acquired would then form an inheritance for each of their children’s family unit.”

The balance left after assisting their children was to enable Libby and Denver to live in comfort and then, on their deaths, to benefit charities.

In their mutual wills, executed in 2018, Libby left her chattels to Denver to distribute them “as he saw fit” to her children in accordance with wishes she made known to him before she died.

She noted in her will that other than personal chattels she had intentionally not made any financial provisions for her children or grandchildren, or Denver’s, due to the family being “adequately provided” for through family trusts and personally by her.

Lisa’s sister Nicole supported her claim to the High Court, while their brother, Stephen, did not.

Nicole confirmed their mother had promised each child would receive at least $1m as an advance inheritance.

But, actually, the money had not been gifted to the children directly and was instead invested into property owned by Libby and Denver, in which the children could live.

Nicole, who fell out with Denver and Libby in the years leading up to Libby’s death, occupied a property in Australia with help from the couple and Stephen had a home bought for him in Christchurch.

Lisa and her children were provided with an $800,000 home, also in Christchurch, for which she met the costs of rates, insurance, repairs and maintenance.

“[Lisa] agreed that it would be put into a trust, with Libby and Denver as two of the three trustees, although she understood the house would be hers when Libby and Denver died,” the decision said.

But when Lisa and her then-fiance purchased a home together in 2017, Lisa wanted to sell the Christchurch property in order to release her capital.

Denver refused to sell the Christchurch property unless he was registered as an owner of their new home.

The decision said Lisa was unable to contribute to the purchase price of their new home and so the couple was “forced” to sell it at a loss.

In order to extricate herself from financial control, Lisa later negotiated a change to the ownership structure of the Christchurch house.

She received a sizeable payment in return for being removed as a beneficiary to the trust controlling the house and by agreeing not to bring any claims against Libby’s estate.

But now, Lisa said at the time she felt powerless when negotiating the terms of the new agreement.

“I had no funds, a minimal income, five children to support, a dilapidated house to live in and a history of broken promises,” she told the court.

Lisa went on to state that following Libby’s death, she and Denver, who has opposed her application to the court, entered into new negotiations over the Christchurch home.

She asked him to honour her mother’s promise that the home was hers, but said this has not come to pass.

Revolting against her lack of control over the property, Lisa has stopped paying the rates, insurance and other expenses relating 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 provided comfort to Libby, who was diagnosed with dementia in 2018, in her final months, Stephen said Lisa’s relationship with their mother was strained and that she had actually cut Libby off two years before she died.

Justice Dunningham said the claim over Libby’s estate was less straightforward than others the court had heard.

Libby and Denver had combined their assets for some time and it was unclear how much Libby had contributed to their millions.

But the judge said there was obviously a “stark gap” between the wealth Libby and Denver accumulated in their lifetime and what Lisa received as direct provision from her mother.

She said it would be a “serious injustice” to Lisa if she was unable to pursue a claim, and accordingly granted her leave to do so.

- Tara Shaskey, Open Justice