Murphy v Murphy - [2013] NZHC 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2010-463-797 [2013] NZHC 217

BETWEEN CHEYNE DENNIS MURPHY Plaintiff

ANDROBYN STEPHANIE MURPHY Defendant

Hearing: 10 and 11 September 2012 (Rotorua), 21 September 2012 (Auckland) Counsel: J Wynyard for Plaintiff
T Grimwood for Defendant

Judgment: 15 February 2013

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 February 2013 at 3:00 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
J Wynyard, Olphert & Associates, Rotorua: jim@olphert.co.nz
T Grimwood, Lance Lawson, Rotorua: tim@lancelawson.co.nz

MURPHY V MURPHY HC ROT CIV-2010-463-797 [15 February 2013]

Table of Contents Paragraph

Number

Result [1] Brief background [3] The nature of the proceedings [8] The issues [12] Undisputed facts related to purchase [15] Why was the property bought and in what circumstances? [16] Cheyne’s allegations [17]
Mrs Murphy’s position [23] Discussion [27] Conclusion as to reasons for acquisition of property [36] Rebuttal of the presumption of ownership [37] Reasonable expectations? [40] Who occupied the property and when [41] Who paid the outgoings and when? [46] Principal and interest repayments on the bank loan [46] Cheyne’s contribution to the outgoings [52] Conclusion as to contributions [57] Parties’ awareness of co-ownership [58] Conclusion – Cheyne not a beneficial owner [61] Resolution of Cheyne’s claims [62] Proposed orders [64]

Result

[1] This is a sad case in which a mother and her son have fallen out over the ownership of a property at 1 Motoi Place, Ngongotaha, Rotorua, of which they are registered proprietors as tenants in common in equal shares. The son seeks orders under the Property Law Act 2007 to resolve the dispute.

[2] For the reasons given below, I conclude:

(a) At the time of the purchase of the property it was intended that Mrs Murphy, the mother, should be the sole beneficial owner – [39] below;

(b)No step was taken either by Cheyne, the son, or Mrs Murphy after the property was acquired to give Cheyne any reasonable expectation that he had a beneficial interest in the property – [61] below;

(c) Title to the property should vest in Mrs Murphy as sole registered proprietor – [61];

(d)Cheyne should be paid $13,500 compensation for his contribution to the increase in the net equity in the property since the time the property was acquired – [62] below;

(e) Orders should be made accordingly. Counsel are invited to confer over the form of the orders to be made. Costs are reserved – [64]-[66] below.

Brief background

[3] In November 1995, Mrs Murphy agreed to buy a house in Ngongotaha, Rotorua. Her parents lent her the money for the deposit but, in circumstances which are disputed, her son Cheyne also signed the loan contract with the Countrywide

Bank (now the ANZ Bank) (“the Bank”) and the agreement to mortgage and became

a registered proprietor of the property.

[4] Over the ensuing 17 years, Cheyne and Mrs Murphy have sometimes occupied the property together and sometimes on their own; from time to time it has…

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 Murphy v Murphy

Details

AGLC: Murphy v Murphy [2013] NZHC 217
Case: [2013] NZHC 217
Decision Date: 15 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was presented with a case where Robyn Stephanie Murphy and her son Cheyne Dennis Murphy disputed the ownership of a property at 1 Motoi Place, Ngongotaha, Rotorua. The case revolved around the co-ownership of the property, with both parties registered as tenants in common in equal shares. Cheyne sought orders under the Property Law Act 2007 to resolve the dispute. The court had to determine whether Cheyne was a beneficial owner of the property, the proportions of the value or net sale proceeds of the property to be received by mother and son respectively, and whether either party should pay the other compensation or occupation rental during relevant periods. The court found that at the time of the purchase, it was intended that Mrs Murphy should be the sole beneficial owner. No step was taken either by Cheyne or Mrs Murphy after the property was acquired to give Cheyne any reasonable expectation that he had a beneficial interest in the property. Consequently, title to the property should vest in Mrs Murphy as the sole registered proprietor. Cheyne should be paid $13,500 compensation for his contribution to the increase in the net equity of the property since the time the property was acquired. The court invited the parties to confer over the form of the orders to be made, including the timing of the compensation payment. Costs were reserved.

Orders