Roblin v Roblin - [2021] NZHC 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2020-419-192

[2021] NZHC 238

UNDER
Section 21 Administration Act 1969, ss 51

and 64 Trustee Act 1956, Part 18 High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER

of an application for removal of trustee, appointment of independent trustee, or order for sale of trust property

BETWEEN

GRANT DALE ROBLIN

Plaintiff

AND

IAN STUART ROBLIN

Defendant

Hearing: 10 February 2021

Appearances:

D O’Neill and H Mills for the Plaintiff No appearance for the Defendant

Judgment:

22 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 February 2020 at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Solicitors/Counsel:
Cooney Law, Cambridge
D M O’Neill, Barrister, Hamilton Copy to the Defendant

ROBLIN v ROBLIN [2021] NZHC 238 [22 February 2021]

[1] The parties are brothers who are in dispute over implementation of the will of their mother who died on 24 July 2017. The primary asset in the mother’s estate is her house at 16 Sutton Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton.

[2] In a judgment delivered by me on 7 March 2019 the defendant, Ian Roblin, was removed as a trustee and replaced by Peter Joseph Fanning of Hamilton, solicitor.1 In making the removal order I said inter alia:

{38] I am satisfied on the basis of the above authorities that this is a clear case where Ian Roblin needs to be removed as a trustee.

[39] The differences between himself and Grant Roblin go beyond mere incompatibility.

[40] Ian Roblin is refusing to co-operate or even to take part in finalising the administration of the estate. This applies particularly in terms of progressing a sale of the Hillcrest property, whether to himself or otherwise. It has now been 17 months since the grant of probate and no progress has been made, despite reasonable efforts on the part of Grant Roblin and the solicitors for the estate. That must disqualify Ian from continuing involvement as a trustee.

[41] Further, even in terms of day-to-day management of the property, Ian Roblin’s actions generally, especially with regard to unilaterally allowing people to occupy the middle floor, are in conflict with his duty as a trustee.

[42] The trust is therefore not only hamstrung, but Ian Roblin has misconducted himself in his role as a trustee.

[3] As part of that earlier application the plaintiff, Grant Roblin, had also sought an order for sale of the Hamilton property. It was agreed an order was not then necessary as the trustees were entitled to proceed as they saw fit. I reserved leave to seek further orders if required.

[4] The plaintiff now seeks further orders regarding or related to implementation of a sale. Although Mr Fanning is not a named plaintiff he has endorsed his consent to the application. Further affidavit evidence has been filed by the plaintiff and Raymond Mitchell, real estate agent, who has been to the property and met Ian…

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 Roblin v Roblin

Details

AGLC: Roblin v Roblin [2021] NZHC 238
Case: [2021] NZHC 238
Decision Date: 22 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Roblin v Roblin involves a dispute between two brothers, Grant Dale Roblin and Ian Stuart Roblin, over the implementation of their mother's will. The central issue is the administration of their mother's estate, specifically the sale of the family home located at 16 Sutton Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton. The High Court was required to decide on the plaintiff's application for the sale of the trust property, the removal of the defendant as a trustee, and the appointment of an independent trustee or an order for the sale of the trust property.

The court examined the legal issues surrounding the management and sale of the property, the role of trustees, and the applicability of the Trustee Act 1956. The court found that despite the defendant's objections, a sale of the property was necessary for the effective administration of the estate. The court also determined that the defendant's actions, such as allowing undesirable individuals to occupy the property and causing damage, obstructed the sale process and were likely to negatively impact the sale price. The court held that it had the jurisdiction to order the eviction of the defendant and any other occupants to facilitate the sale of the property.

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the sale of the property and the eviction of the defendant and any other occupants. The sale proceeds were to be applied to various debts and costs before being divided equally between the parties. The court also made provisions for the real estate agent to inspect and report on the property, as well as for the division of the net sale proceeds between the parties. The court reserved leave for the parties to return to court if further orders were required.

This case highlights the importance of effective estate administration and the court's role in ensuring that the wishes of the deceased are carried out. The court's decision also underscores the need for trustees to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and the consequences of failing to do so.

Orders