Legal Research
Cases
Matangi-Paraha v Paraha

Matangi-Paraha v Paraha

Case [2018] NZHC 564 28 March 2018

Joint Tenancy

Severance of Joint Tenancy

Equitable Interest

Specific Performance

Caveat

Joint Family Homes Act

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI TERENGA PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2017-488-105 [2018] NZHC 564

UNDER the Land Transfer Act 1952

IN THE MATTER OF

an application for an order that caveat 10879830.1 not lapse, and notice of claim 8923006.1 not lapse

BETWEEN

TERESA JANE MATANGI-PARAHA

as administrator of the Estate of MARLEO ROBERT PARAHA

First Applicant

TERESA JANE MATANGI-PARAHA as the
surviving spouse of MARLEO ROBERT PARAHA
Second Applicant

AND

GINA SHERILEE PARAHA

as administrator of the Estate of
CONSTANCE CELIA RUKA-CONNELL

Respondent

Hearing: 6 March 2018

Appearances:

V McGoldrick for the Applicants

J Golightly and D Reeves for the Respondent

Judgment:

28 March 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Solicitors:

This judgment was delivered by me on 28 March 2018 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………………
Deputy Registrar

Henderson Reeves (Vanassa McGoldrick), Whangarei, for the Applicants
Marsden Woods Inskip Smith (Juliet Golightly/David Reeves), Whangarei for Respondent

MATANGI-PARAHA v PARAHA as administrator of the Estate of CONSTANCE CELIA RUKA-CONNELL [2018] NZHC 564 [28 March 2018]

[1] Teresa Matangi-Paraha applies under s 145A of the Land Transfer Act 1952 to sustain caveat 10879830.1 lodged against the title to the property at 10 Collingwood Street, Raumanga, Whangarei, being a fee simple estate of 1206 square metres, Lot 5 Deposited Plan 55903 described in identifier NA9B/1017 North Auckland Registry. She lodged the caveat on 18 August 2017. The respondent, Gina Sherilee Paraha, is the registered proprietor under a transmission registered on 17 August 2017. Teresa Matangi-Paraha also lodged a notice of claim 8923006.1 against the title, but she no longer seeks an order sustaining the notice of claim.

[2] 10 Collingwood Street originally belonged to Marleo Robert Paraha and his wife, Constance. They separated and later divorced. He remarried. They have since died, each intestate. The family has not been able to resolve what is to happen to the modest family home. Teresa Matangi-Paraha, the applicant, is the widow of the second marriage of Marleo, who died on 23 June 2011. Gina Paraha, the respondent, is one of the children of Constance, who died on 18 January 2015.

[3] In 1990, after the dissolution of their marriage, Marleo and Constance made an agreement under s 21 of the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 under which Constance was to transfer her half share in the property to their three children jointly. That would leave Marleo owning a half interest in the property as a tenant in common with their children.

[4] While some steps were taken, the conveyancing was not completed. Teresa says that, even so, Marleo retained an interest in the property as a tenant in common for a half share, and that interest has passed to her as the administrator of his estate following his death and the grant of letters of administration to her.

[5] On the other hand, Gina says that the joint tenancy under which Marleo and Constance owned the property was never…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Matangi-Paraha v Paraha

Details

AGLC: Matangi-Paraha v Paraha [2018] NZHC 564
Case: [2018] NZHC 564
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves Teresa Matangi-Paraha, the widow of Marleo Robert Paraha, who seeks to sustain a caveat lodged against a property located at 10 Collingwood Street, Raumanga, Whangarei. The property was originally owned by Marleo and Constance, who later divorced. The dispute centers on the property's ownership following the deaths of both Marleo and Constance. Gina Sherilee Paraha, as administrator of Constance's estate, argues that she is the rightful owner of the property. Teresa, on the other hand, claims that Marleo owned a half-share in the property, which should pass to her as the administrator of his estate.

The court was required to decide whether Teresa had established a reasonably arguable case for the interest she claimed in the property and whether the caveat should be sustained. The court also had to consider whether the caveat could be removed, and if so, under what circumstances.

The court found that Teresa had established a reasonably arguable case for the interest she claimed in the property. The court noted that Marleo and Constance had entered into a binding agreement in 1990, which required Constance to transfer her half share in the property to their three children. Although the conveyancing was not completed, the court found that the agreement remained enforceable, and equity would recognize the severance of the joint tenancy. The court also found that the registration under the Joint Family Homes Act did not prevent the enforcement of the agreement.

The court held that Teresa was entitled to sustain the caveat, and it should not lapse pending further order of the court. The court ordered that Teresa must bring a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction to uphold the interests she has claimed under the caveat, and she must pursue that proceeding with due diligence. The court also ordered that Teresa was entitled to costs.

In summary, the court sustained the caveat lodged by Teresa Matangi-Paraha and found that she had established a reasonably arguable case for the interest she claimed in the property. The court ordered that the caveat shall not lapse pending further order of the court and that Teresa must bring a proceeding to uphold the interests she has claimed under the caveat. The court also ordered that Teresa was entitled to costs.

Orders