Teio v Teio - [2024] NZHC 198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2023-404-002046

[2024] NZHC 198

UNDER Section 21 of the Administration Act 1969, Section 339 The Property Law Act 2007 and Part 19 High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

the Estate of SAPASUI FRED

BETWEEN

PAUL TEIO, ANNIE PATSY PRIORE and

HARRY TEIO as Administrators of the Estate of SAPASUI FRED

Applicants

AND

NOOROA JUNIOR TEIO as Administrator of the Estate of SAPASUI FRED Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2024

Appearances:

W E Andrews for the Applicants N J Teio (Respondent) in person

Judgment:

16 February 2024

JUDGMENT OF TAHANA J

This judgment was delivered by me on2024 atam/pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Bastion Chambers, Auckland Dawsons Lawyers Auckland

TEIO v TEIO [2024] NZHC 198 [16 February 2024]

Introduction

[1] The applicants and respondent are siblings. They inherited the family home at 9 Lawrence Place, Ōtara (“the property”) from their mother, Ms Sapasui Fred. The property is held in their four names as administrators of Ms Fred’s estate. Three of the four siblings (“the applicants”) wish to sell the property. They apply for orders for sale of the property under s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007 (“PLA”).

[2] While the applicants initially applied to remove the respondent (Nooroa Teio (“Nooroa”)) as an administrator, Ms Andrews for the applicants indicated at the hearing that removal is unnecessary if orders for sale are made.

[3] I therefore first consider whether orders should be made for the sale of the property.

Background

[4] Ms Fred was born in Niue and moved to Aotearoa New Zealand. Ms Fred married and then separated from her husband, who is from Rarotonga. She raised her four biological children and whāngai1 at the property, which is the whānau (family) home. Ms Fred lived in New Zealand for 46 years and passed away on 29 July 2003, aged 65.

[5] The applicants and Nooroa obtained letters of administration on 26 August 2005. The property was then transferred into their names as administrators.

[6] Other than living with his sister for a number of years, Nooroa says he has lived at the property since his mother’s death. He currently lives there with his two whāngai sisters, his son and two nephews.

1 The applicants and respondents accept that Pauline Tutaka is whāngai. The respondent, Nooroa, says Ms Fred raised two whāngai, Pauline Tutaka and Teremoana Tutaka. The applicants’ views as to whether Teremoana Tutaka is also a whāngai are unknown as the applicants were not at the hearing of the application.

[7] The applicants say they have tried unsuccessfully over the years to get Nooroa to agree to the sale of the property but to date, no resolution has been achieved. They now seek the Court’s intervention.

[8] To avoid any confusion given the same whānau (family) name, I refer to given names.

Should orders be made for the sale…

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 Teio v Teio

Details

AGLC: Teio v Teio [2024] NZHC 198
Case: [2024] NZHC 198
Decision Date: 16 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case Teio v Teio before the High Court of New Zealand concerns a dispute among siblings over the sale of their late mother's family home. The applicants, Paul Teio, Annie Patsy Priore, and Harry Teio, seek orders to sell the property under Section 339 of the Property Law Act 2007. They argue that they have been unable to benefit from the property and wish to sell it to realize its value. The respondent, Nooroa Junior Teio, opposes the sale, citing their mother's alleged wishes that the property remain in the family and be used as a place for family members to stay. The court must determine whether to grant an order for the sale of the property, considering the extent of the shares, nature of the property, and the hardship caused to each party.

The court considered the extent of the shares in the property, which is divided equally among the four siblings. The nature of the property, a residential home that has been in the family for over 60 years, means it cannot be physically divided. The court weighed the hardship faced by the applicants if the property is not sold against the hardship to Nooroa and the other occupants if it is sold. The applicants face financial hardship due to the growing liability of unpaid rates and the inability to benefit from the property. Nooroa argues that selling the property would dishonor their mother's wishes and cultural norms that the family home should be retained for future generations. The court recognized the cultural significance of the property and the whānau's view of the home as a cultural heritage. Ultimately, the court found that the applicants' hardship in not being able to benefit from the property outweighed Nooroa's concerns about the sale.

The court decided to grant the order for the sale of the property but held the order in abeyance until 1 June 2024. This decision allows time for the whānau to explore an amicable resolution and for Nooroa and other occupants to find alternative accommodation. The court also made specific orders regarding the sale process, expenses, and distribution of proceeds. The court declined to require Nooroa to pay occupational rent, as this should be borne by the estate. The applicants' request for costs to be paid out of Nooroa's share was denied, as the estate should bear the costs of the application.

The final orders include vacating the property by 1 June 2024, granting the applicants sole right of possession for sale preparation, and authorizing the sale by public auction with specific terms. The proceeds of the sale will be applied to pay estate-related expenses, marketing and conveyancing costs, and then distributed equally among the siblings. The orders are to lie in court until 1 June 2024, and either party may apply to vary the terms if a settlement is reached or a dispute arises.

Orders