Steinbauer v Steinbauer - [2022] NZHC 911

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 911

BETWEEN
KURT RITCHIE STEINBAUER as executor of the estates of Judith Eleanor Steinbauer

and Graeme Robert Cooper Plaintiff

AND

MATTHEW VINCENT STEINBAUER

Defendant

Hearing: 3 May 2022

Appearances:

A R Davie for Plaintiff Defendant in person

Judgment:

3 May 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[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.

STEINBAUER v STEINBAUER [2022] NZHC 911 [3 May 2022]

[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] The plaintiff has commenced this proceeding in which he seeks summary judgment under pt 12 or pt 13 of the High Court Rules 2016 for an order for vacant possession of the property. The defendant opposes that application. He has filed no notice of opposition or affidavit evidence and taken no other formal step in the proceeding. The day before the hearing the defendant emailed the Registrar saying that he was unwell and seeking an adjournment. Despite this he made arrangements to telephone in and fully participated in the hearing. There was therefore no need to rule on the informal application for an adjournment (which, in the circumstances, would almost certainly have been declined in any event). I gave the defendant leave to speak to his opposition to the orders sought despite the irregular nature of his involvement in the hearing.

[6] I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out the basis for his application, whether that is analysed in terms of pt 12 or 13 of the High Court Rules. Taking pt 13 as the most straightforward route there is no doubt that the defendant falls within the definition of an unlawful occupier as set out in r 13.1.…

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 911
Case: [2022] NZHC 911
Decision Date: 3 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Steinbauer v Steinbauer involved a dispute over the residential property at 114B Hillcrest Road in Raumati on the Kapiti Coast. The property was jointly owned by Kurt Ritchie Steinbauer, as executor of the estates of Judith Eleanor Steinbauer and Graeme Robert Cooper, and Matthew Vincent Steinbauer. The plaintiff, Kurt Steinbauer, sought summary judgment for an order of vacant possession of the property, as the defendant, Matthew Steinbauer, had failed to vacate the premises despite the expiration of a three-month period given by the plaintiff for him to leave. The defendant opposed the application but did not file any formal notice of opposition or affidavit evidence.

The court had to decide whether the defendant, Matthew Steinbauer, had any valid defence to the plaintiff's claim for vacant possession of the property. The court examined the defendant's arguments, which included his close relationship with his mother, the plaintiff's alleged harassment, and his own health issues. The court found that none of these arguments constituted a valid defence to the claim for vacant possession. The court concluded that the defendant was an unlawful occupier under the High Court Rules, and that the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

The court granted the plaintiff summary judgment and ordered vacant possession of the property, effective from 3 June 2022. The plaintiff was also entitled to a costs order on a 2B basis, together with such costs as may be allowed by the Registrar. The defendant had the opportunity to present his case but failed to provide any evidence to support his arguments. The court found that the plaintiff had established that the defendant had no arguable defence, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the orders sought.

Orders