Roblin v Roblin - [2019] NZHC 374

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2018-419-000254

[2019] NZHC 374

BETWEEN
GRANT DALE ROBLIN

Plaintiff

AND

IAN STUART ROBLIN

Defendant

Hearing: 21 February 2019

Appearances:

D O’Neill for Plaintiff

No appearance by or for Defendant

Judgment:

7 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 7 March 2019 at 4.15 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Counsel/Solicitors:
David O’Neill, Barrister, Hamilton Cooney Law, Cambridge

GRANT DALE ROBLIN v IAN STUART ROBLIN [2019] NZHC 374 [7 March 2019]

[1] This judgment follows a formal proof hearing of an application to remove a trustee under s 51 of the Trustee Act 1956.

Background

[2] The plaintiff, Grant Roblin and the defendant, Ian Roblin, are brothers. They have no other siblings.

[3] Their mother, Janet Roblin, died on 24 July 2017. Their father had pre-deceased their mother.

[4] Mrs Roblin’s last will, dated 27 February 1995, appointed the two brothers as her executors and trustees and left the residue of her estate equally to them. Probate was granted on 17 October 2017.

[5] Mrs Roblin’s assets comprised bank accounts of approximately $180,000 (which have been equally distributed) and a property at 16 Sutton Crescent, Hillcrest, Hamilton.

[6] The Hillcrest property has three levels, which are each self-contained. Ian Roblin and his partner occupy the top floor. Ian has lived there for about 30 years. Mrs Roblin occupied the middle floor.

[7] In 2006, when Mrs Roblin started to suffer from Alzheimer’s, Grant Roblin and his wife moved into the ground floor of the Hillcrest property, in order for the two sons to take turns looking after their mother. Mrs Roblin became progressively worse to the point where her floor needed to be locked to keep her in it.

[8] Before their mother died, Grant Roblin made it clear to Ian that after their mother died, he would want the property sold. Ian was strongly of the view that they should stay in the house for the rest of their lives.

[9] It seems as a consequence of this strong difference of opinion, the two brothers’ relationship became toxic.

[10] After their mother died, Grant says he suggested to Ian that the value of the property was about $800,000 and that Ian could buy him out for $400,000. According to Grant, Ian thought that reasonable and more or less agreed to proceed on that basis. This was in about late-2017. Grant understood from Ian that Ian’s partner was going to receive money from an estate, which was then going to be the source of funds for a buy-out. So far as Grant is aware, Ian would not be able to borrow money and does not otherwise have the necessary capital. However, Grant then found out that Ian’s parents-in-law were both still alive, and he realised that the buy-out was not going to happen. He says he waited some time before coming…

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 [2019] NZHC 374
Case: [2019] NZHC 374
Decision Date: 7 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roblin v Roblin, the High Court of New Zealand was tasked with deciding whether Ian Roblin should be removed as a trustee of his mother's will trust. The plaintiff, Grant Roblin, sought to remove Ian as a trustee and executor, arguing that Ian's refusal to cooperate in the administration of the estate and his conduct in allowing unauthorized occupants to live in the property made it expedient to remove him. The court considered the legal principles governing the removal of trustees, including the duty to properly administer estates and execute trusts, the weight given to the wishes of the testator, and the welfare of the beneficiaries. The court found that Ian's refusal to cooperate and his actions in allowing unauthorized occupants to live in the property constituted misconduct and hamstrung the trust. The court accordingly ordered that Ian be removed as a trustee and Peter Joseph Fanning, a solicitor, be appointed as a replacement trustee. The court also reserved the right to make further orders if necessary. The court ordered costs against Ian Roblin, to be determined by the plaintiff's counsel.

The court's decision was based on the principle that the administration of trusts and estates should be carried out properly and efficiently, and that the welfare of the beneficiaries is a key consideration. The court found that Ian's conduct as a trustee was not only incompatible with Grant's wishes but also hamstrung the trust, making it expedient to remove him. The court considered the guiding principles of expediency, suitability, practicality, and efficiency in making its decision. The court also noted that the power to remove trustees is not limited to cases of misconduct or moral fault but can be exercised in cases where a trustee's actions make it difficult to properly administer the trust. The court's decision to remove Ian as a trustee and appoint an independent trustee was based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case, including the brothers' toxic relationship and the unauthorized occupants in the property. The court's decision also emphasized the importance of the welfare of the beneficiaries in the administration of trusts and estates.

Orders