An Open Letter re: the Olga Riddell Trust

This letter is written openly so that my position is clear, consistent, and not misrepresented. My brother and I were removed as discretionary beneficiaries of the Olga Riddell Trust by a deed dated 13 November 2020. That document exists, and I do not deny that it was executed.

However, several things also need to be said plainly.

First, our primary objective is simple: we are seeking to receive a fair share of the trust. We are not seeking punishment, public blame, or family conflict. We are seeking a practical outcome that reflects our connection to our grandmother and avoids unnecessary litigation.

Second, while we are not asserting as a concluded fact that the 2020 deed is invalid, there remain unresolved and serious questions about the circumstances in which it was executed. These include issues of capacity, independence, and the absence of any contemporaneous explanation for the removal of grandchildren. Those questions cannot be resolved without access to contemporaneous legal and medical material, which has not been made available.

Third, and separately, communications after 2021 repeatedly suggested to family members that we would still benefit from the trust, or would receive a share through our late father. Those statements were inconsistent with the legal effect of the 2020 deed and created a misleading impression about our position. This has caused confusion, distress, and a prolonged lack of clarity that should not exist in the administration of a family trust.

Fourth, our preference remains to resolve this matter without court proceedings. There are multiple constructive paths available that would avoid litigation, including reinstatement as beneficiaries, an agreed distribution, or another mechanism that provides us with a substantive benefit from the trust. Any of these would be preferable to contested proceedings that would require scrutiny of capacity, influence, and governance decisions.

If no such engagement is forthcoming, litigation may become unavoidable. That is not our preference, but clarity and fairness require that we protect our position if necessary.

This letter is written so that the record is clear: we have consistently sought a reasonable outcome, and we remain open to one.