Hoch v Hoch

The parties in this case are Ian Hoch and Andrew Grant Hoch, who own land as tenants in common in equal shares. The dispute revolves around a proposed scheme of partition for the sale or division of the property, which was prepared by trustees. Ian Hoch has applied for a variation of the scheme, arguing that it does not result in an equal division of the property. Additionally, both parties claim to have made improvements to the property and seek an allowance to reflect the value of these improvements.

The legal issues before the court were whether the scheme of partition produced, as nearly as possible, an equal division of the property and whether the applicant and/or the respondent were entitled to an allowance for the value of improvements and repairs they claimed to have made. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and the expert opinions of three registered valuers.

The court found that the proposed scheme of partition did not result in an equal division of the property. It varied the scheme to partition the land in accordance with proposed Lots 11 and 12. The court also found that Ian Hoch was entitled to an allowance of $42,500 for the value of improvements he made to the property, and Andrew Hoch was entitled to an allowance of $9,517 for the value of improvements he made. However, the court found no evidence to support the other claims for improvements, and therefore, no allowance was granted for those claims.

The court made orders varying the scheme of partition, requiring the respondent to account to the applicant for $63,145, and requiring the applicant to pay the respondent an allowance of $9,517. The court will hear the parties regarding any other orders, including costs.