Steinbauer v Steinbauer - [2022] NZHC 1644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-117

[2022] NZHC 1644

BETWEEN
MATTHEW VINCENT STEINBAUER

Applicant

AND

KURT RITCHIE STEINBAUER

Respondent

Hearing (by VMR): 11 July 2022

Appearances:

Applicant in person

A R Davie for the Respondent

Judgment:

12 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF GWYN J

(Application for stay of execution of judgment)

[1] On 3 May 2022, Associate Judge Johnston made an order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff Mr Kurt Steinbauer.1 The order made by the Associate Judge was for the possession of the property at 114B Hillcrest Road, Raumati Beach, Wellington (property). The order was to come into effect on 3 June 2022. Subsequently a possession order in relation to the property was sealed by the Court.2

[2] Mr Matthew Steinbauer (Matthew), against whom the order for summary judgment was made, has filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal and has filed an application in this Court for stay of the judgment. Although that application was initially made without notice, when it came before Palmer J as Duty Judge on 28 June 2022 he directed that the application be served on the respondent and a case management telephone conference be held.

1 Steinbauer v Steinbauer [2022] NZHC 911 (judgment).
2 On 13 June 2022.
STEINBAUER v STEINBAUER (Application for stay of execution of judgment) [2022] NZHC 1644 [12 July 2022]

[3] Subsequently, the respondent, Kurt Steinbauer (Kurt), has filed a notice of opposition to the application for a stay.

Background

[4]The background to this case is set out in the judgment:3

[1] The residential property at 114B Hillcrest Road in Raumati on the Kapiti Coast is owned as to two thirds by the plaintiff, Mr Kent Steinbauer, in his capacity as the executor of the estate of the late Mr Graeme Cooper and as to one third by the plaintiff in his capacity as the executor of the estate of Mrs Judith Steinbauer.

[2] Mr Cooper and Mrs Steinbauer were domestic partners. They lived together in the property. The defendant, Mr Matthew Steinbauer, is Mrs Steinbauer’s son and the plaintiff’s brother. Mr Cooper died in June 2016. Mrs Steinbauer died in July 2021.

[3] As at the date of Mrs Steinbauer’s death, Mr Steinbauer was living at Hillcrest Road with her. He tells me that he has lived there — on and off — for twenty years.

[4] The plaintiff’s evidence is that Mrs Steinbauer had wanted the defendant to have a period of three months from her death to vacate the property. That period expired on 14 October 2021. Despite extensive discussions and negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant; despite the plaintiff having given the defendant an additional four months to vacate; and despite the defendant apparently having agreed, in mid-December 2021, to vacate within “a few weeks”, the defendant is still living in the property, and is reluctant to leave.

[5] Matthew did not file any evidence in opposition to the…

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 Steinbauer v Steinbauer

Details

AGLC: Steinbauer v Steinbauer [2022] NZHC 1644
Case: [2022] NZHC 1644
Decision Date: 12 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Steinbauer v Steinbauer involved an application by Matthew Steinbauer for a stay of execution of a summary judgment and possession order made by Associate Judge Johnston in favour of Kurt Steinbauer. The judgment addressed the legal issues regarding the criteria for granting a stay of execution of a judgment pending the determination of an appeal. The court had to consider the factors relevant to granting a stay, including the strength of the appeal, the effect on the parties and third parties, and the overall balance of convenience.

The court concluded that the appeal did not appear to have a strong prospect of success, as Matthew did not provide any evidence to oppose the summary judgment application. However, the court granted a stay of two months due to Matthew's health issues and the need for him to find alternative accommodation. The court also considered the effect on third parties, as the property could not be sold while Matthew remained in occupation.

The final orders of the court were that the execution of the Court order of 3 May 2022 and the possession order of 13 June 2022 were stayed until Tuesday 13 September 2022. The court did not address the issue of costs on this application.

Orders