Nelson v Meier - [2016] NZHC 787

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-005091 [2016] NZHC 787

BETWEEN
THELMA EDITH NELSON

Plaintiff

AND

SANDRA LEANNE MEIER AND EAN INNES BROWN AS TRUSTEES OF THE SANDRA MEIER FAMILY TRUST

First Defendants

AND

ALFRED MEIER, SANDRA LEANNE MEIER AND IAN AUSTIN HARWOOD AS TRUSTEES OF THE ALFRED MEIER FAMILY TRUST

Second Defendants

AND

SANDRA LEANNE MEIER Third Defendant

Hearing: 9, 10, 11 February 2016 and 18 April 2016

Appearances:

D Rooke for the Plaintiff
No appearance by or for the First and Second Defendants
R S Pidgeon for the Third Defendant

Judgment:

22 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 April 2016 at 5.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………………………………………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
David Rooke Law Office, Botany Town Centre, Auckland

Counsel:
R S Pidgeon, Barrister, Auckland

NELSON v MEIER & ORS [2016] NZHC 787 [22 April 2016]

Introduction

[1] Edith Nelson is 74. She has two daughters from her first marriage, Sandra and Annwyn. Mrs Nelson built a unit on Sandra’s property at Waiheke. Mrs Nelson and Sandra have fallen out, and the property has since been sold. Mrs Nelson seeks compensation in respect of the unit and to recover additional money she says she lent to Sandra.

Facts

[2] Mrs Nelson’s second husband, Tom Nelson, died in 2000. Mrs Nelson inherited assets in her own right, which she sold for about $300,000. She also received a life interest in a farm, the sale of which netted approximately $280,000. The residue was to go to her step-son, Jim Nelson, on her death. Instead of the farm proceeds being held in trust and the income paid to Mrs Nelson, the estate’s solicitor paid the full amount to her. Mrs Nelson then dealt with the trust money as well as her own. Mrs Nelson bought a property to live in at Orewa. She sold that in 2003 for about $70,000 more than she had paid for it. It appears that Mrs Nelson then had access to about $650,000, including the profit she made on the Orewa property, but a sizeable part was money in which she only had a life interest.

[3] In July 2002, Mrs Nelson gifted $80,000 to Annwyn to enable her to buy a house.

[4] At about the same time, Sandra and her husband, Alfred, bought land at Seaview Road, Waiheke (the property). It was registered in the names of their two trusts, which are the first and second defendants (the Meier Trust Partnership).

[5] Sandra and Alfred built a house on the property (the house). They had wished to build a unit as well as a house, but the cost was beyond them, so the unit did not progress beyond a bare floor plan. From May 2003, Sandra and Alfred lived in the house with their two daughters, Kelsie and Danielle.

[6] Between March and October 2003, Mrs Nelson lent Annwyn about $120,000 in total, mainly to help fund a…

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 Nelson v Meier

Details

AGLC: Nelson v Meier [2016] NZHC 787
Case: [2016] NZHC 787
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a dispute between Thelma Edith Nelson and Sandra Leanne Meier. Mrs Nelson claims compensation for the construction of a unit on Sandra's property and for additional money she claims to have lent to Sandra. The central issues before the court were whether the parties' agreement in August 2005 settled their rights and obligations, whether there was a breach of the licence to occupy, and whether the payments made by Mrs Nelson to Sandra were loans or gifts. The court held that the agreement in August 2005 did settle the parties' rights and that the claims in equity were rejected. The court found that the defendants were in breach of the licence to occupy, depriving Mrs Nelson of the opportunity to re-exercise her right of occupation of the unit. Damages for the breach of the licence to occupy were set at $18,720. Finally, the court found that only $5,278 of the payments made by Mrs Nelson to Sandra were loans, with the remainder being gifts. Judgment was entered against all defendants on the third cause of action for breach of, or interference with, contract in the sum of $18,720 and against the third defendant on the fourth cause of action for debt recovery in the sum of $5,278.

Orders