Styler v James
Case
•
[2020] NZHC 713
•7 April 2020
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Styler v James [2020] NZHC 713
[2020] NZHC 713
7 April 2020
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry, the plaintiff, Anthony Frederick Styler, filed an application for an order to divide property under the Property Law Act 2007 against the defendant, Susan Elizabeth James. The plaintiff and the deceased, Ms Styler, were married for approximately 20 years and resided at 8 Opal Place, Christchurch. The property is the subject of this proceeding. Ms Styler died before 19 November 2008, evidenced by a Property Sharing Deed signed by the plaintiff, the defendant, and the defendant's brother, Barry John Deanes, on that date. The deed outlines the respective shares of the property and the personal right of occupation held by the plaintiff, subject to certain conditions.
The court was required to determine whether an order should be made for the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the co-owners, as requested by the plaintiff. The court considered the relevant factors under section 342 of the Act, including the extent of the shares of the co-owners, the nature and location of the property, and the hardship that would be caused to the applicant by the refusal of the order, among others. The court also considered the terms of the Deed, which provided that if none of the parties wished to buy out the other, the property was to be sold.
The court found that the facts of the case warranted an order for the sale of the property. The plaintiff and Mr Deanes represented 70% of the ownership interests and supported the sale. The property was a house on a section of 640 square meters, and there was no suggestion from the defendant that the sale would cause her any hardship. The court also considered that the present situation, with the property vacant and creating costs to the parties, could not continue.
The court ordered that the property at 8 Opal Place, Christchurch, be sold and directed the plaintiff to file a draft order supported by an explanatory memorandum and affidavit evidence as to the factual matters to be considered in the supplementary orders. The court reserved costs.
The court was required to determine whether an order should be made for the sale of the property and the division of the proceeds among the co-owners, as requested by the plaintiff. The court considered the relevant factors under section 342 of the Act, including the extent of the shares of the co-owners, the nature and location of the property, and the hardship that would be caused to the applicant by the refusal of the order, among others. The court also considered the terms of the Deed, which provided that if none of the parties wished to buy out the other, the property was to be sold.
The court found that the facts of the case warranted an order for the sale of the property. The plaintiff and Mr Deanes represented 70% of the ownership interests and supported the sale. The property was a house on a section of 640 square meters, and there was no suggestion from the defendant that the sale would cause her any hardship. The court also considered that the present situation, with the property vacant and creating costs to the parties, could not continue.
The court ordered that the property at 8 Opal Place, Christchurch, be sold and directed the plaintiff to file a draft order supported by an explanatory memorandum and affidavit evidence as to the factual matters to be considered in the supplementary orders. The court reserved costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Contract Formation
-
Dividing Property
-
Reimbursement
-
Order for Sale
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Styler v James [2020] NZHC 713
Most Recent Citation
Wirepa v Wirepa [2024] NZHC 587
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Alderton v Sixty-Six Auckland Limited
[2024] NZHC 2263
Wirepa v Wirepa
[2024] NZHC 587
Alderton v Sixty-Six Auckland Limited
[2024] NZHC 2263
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
0
Kid Country Te Atatu Ltd v Hoy
[2019] NZHC 988
Kid Country Te Atatu Ltd v Hoy
[2019] NZHC 988