IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Walter William Wihongi - Succession. Alison Mary Thompson Applicant

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Walter William Wihongi - Succession. Alison Mary Thompson Applicant"

Transcription

1 117 Taitokerau MB 245 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Sections 113 and 117, Te Ture Whenua Màori Act 1993 Walter William Wihongi - Succession Alison Mary Thompson Applicant A UNDER Section 328, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Parahaki 1E2 - Occupation Sheree Harawene Applicant Vaughan Lomax Respondent Hearing: 18 November March October 2014 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Bernadette Arapere and Ihapera Peters for Alison Thompson Graeme Mathias for Sheree Harawene Judgment: 2 December 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER

2 117 Taitokerau MB 246 Introduction [1] Walter Wihongi was the sole owner of Parahaki 1E2 ( the land ). At the time of his death in 2005 he was separated from his wife. He had no children. Pursuant to his will executed in 2002 he left his entire estate to his grand-nephew, Vaughan Lomax. [2] In about 1989 Walter allowed his niece, Sheree Harawene, to build a house on the land. Walter executed a mortgage in favour of the Housing Corporation of New Zealand ( HCNZ ), and Sheree and her first husband executed covenants assuming responsibility for the loan. In 1994 a second mortgage was granted to HCNZ and a further loan taken out to cover rates and mortgage arrears. Sheree and her first husband took responsibility for payments under both mortgages, and since she parted from her first husband, Sheree has taken sole responsibility for those payments. [3] Alison Thompson, another of Walter s nieces and the executrix of his will, has applied to the Court for succession orders to vest the land in Vaughan. Sheree initially opposed those orders as she claimed an interest in the land in relation to her house. She has since filed an application under s 328 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 ( the Act ) for an occupation order. She claims ownership of the house and, in the alternative to an occupation order, claims an equitable interest in the land. Sheree no longer opposes Vaughan succeeding to the land providing that her interest in the land is recognised. Alison and Vaughan oppose Sheree having any interest in the land or an occupation order, though they accept she owns the house. [4] Following the final hearing on 24 March 2014 I gave the parties time to negotiate a settlement of Sheree s claim. Despite Vaughan proposing through his lawyer that he grant Sheree a licence to occupy, the parties confirmed on 13 October 2014 that they could not reach a settlement. The primary issue for the Court is therefore whether Sheree is entitled to any interest or remedy in relation to the house and the land. Background [5] The land is Māori freehold land and is approximately 4046 m 2 in area. It is situated at Parahaki, a small rural settlement on Mangakahia Road. The land title was created by

3 117 Taitokerau MB 247 partition order in 1948 in favour of Walter s late mother. 1 She built a house at the rear of the land ( the homestead ). In 1977 Walter s mother gifted the land to him. It is now held under certificate of title CFR NA 75C/24. Walter has three sisters, one being Sheree s mother and another being Alison s mother and Vaughan s grandmother. [6] In about 1988 Sheree was living in difficult circumstances in a van on a neighbouring block of whanau land. She was expecting her third child. Sheree says that Walter approached her and offered to her that she build a new house on his land beside the road. Sheree says that it was in fact Walter s wife, Bobbee, who promoted this idea. [7] It does not matter exactly how the approach from Walter arose. The important point is that following discussions an application was made to HCNZ for finance to build a house. HCNZ required a mortgage. Walter executed the mortgage in favour of HCNZ. Sheree and her first husband covenanted to take responsibility for payment of the mortgage loan. The house was built on the front part of the land in about [8] As noted, in 1994 a second mortgage was granted over the land in relation to rates and mortgage arrears. Nevertheless, the evidence is that Sheree and/or her first husband met all payments under the mortgage to HCNZ, and that Sheree continues to meet those responsibilities. Also, since at least 2005, when Walter died, and possibly earlier, Sheree has paid the rates in respect of the land. [9] Sheree continues to live in the house on the land with her second husband and her children. While Sheree was aware that Walter was intending to leave the land to someone else under his will (she thought it was to Vaughan s father), it was not until late 2013 when the succession application was filed that she became aware that it was in fact Vaughan who was to receive the land interests. Issues [10] Alison seeks to complete her duties as executrix and have the land transferred to Vaughan. She disputes that Sheree is entitled to any interest in the land or an occupation order. Vaughan is not prepared to consent to an occupation order though he is prepared to 1 23 Whangarei MB 343 (23 WH 343).

4 117 Taitokerau MB 248 consider some form of occupation licence once the land is vested in him. Sheree says that she is entitled to an occupation order or some other equitable interest in the land as of right. I therefore address the issues in terms of the application for an occupation order, the claim to an equitable interest in the land, and the succession to the land. Occupation order [11] Sheree says that she is entitled to an occupation order. The immediate problem with that claim is that Sheree does not come within the category of persons in respect of whom an occupation order may be granted under s 328(1) of the Act, which provides: 328 Occupation orders (1) The Maori Land Court may, in its discretion, make, in relation to any Maori freehold land or any general land owned by Maori, an order vesting in (a) (b) The owner of any beneficial interest in that land; or Any person who is entitled to succeed to the beneficial interests of any deceased person, in that land, exclusive use and occupation of the whole or any part of that land as a site for a house (including a house that has already been built and is located on that land when the order is made). [12] Sheree s counsel, Graeme Mathias, argues that Sheree qualifies under either s 328(1)(a) or (b). [13] In terms of s 328(1)(a), Mr Mathias argues that as Sheree owns the house, which is a fixture and therefore part of the land, she qualifies as an owner of any beneficial interest in the land. Further, as Sheree claims an equitable interest in the land by way of either a trust or equitable estoppel, she is an owner of a beneficial interest in the land. Mr Mathias did not refer to any authority or case law in support of his argument. [14] I am not persuaded that Sheree s ownership of her house (which is undisputed) or her claim to an equitable interest in the land qualifies her as the owner of a beneficial interest in the land for the purposes of s 328(1)(a). The terms beneficial interest or beneficial owner are used throughout the Act but are nowhere defined by it. This general issue was discussed by the Māori Appellate Court in Whaanga Mahia Township Sections 90 and 91 where the Court was primarily concerned with the use of the term beneficially

5 117 Taitokerau MB 249 owned by one or more Māori in relation to general land for the purposes of s 133 of the Act. 2 In relation to the concept of beneficial ownership under the Act the Court observed that: 3 Section 133(3)(a) requires that the land be beneficially owned by one or more Māori;. Inevitably general land will be subject to Land Transfer Title and the Land Transfer Registry, unlike the Māori Land Court Title system has no process which recognises or differentiates between legal owners and beneficial owners. Land Transfer Title simply records the legal owner and the question therefore arises as to how far the Court can go behind the land ownership to determine the beneficial ownership of General land. Once the Court is satisfied that section 133(3)(a) applies it then must consider the other provisions of section 133(3). It is noted that ss (3)(b) and (c) both refer to owners rather than beneficial owners. In most cases the legal owners of the land will also be the beneficial owners. However the context of ss (3) requires that the word owners includes those who are found to beneficially own the land under ss (3)(a) Throughout Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 there are various references to beneficial owners, beneficial ownership, owners of beneficial interests and beneficial estates. Part IV relating to succession by virtue of Section 100(1) applies to all estate of deceased persons (whether or not Māori) comprising in whole or in part any beneficial interests in Māori freehold land. In Part VII the rights of owners to alienate are set out and extend to beneficial owners pursuant to section 149 which is headed Alienation of Equitable Interests and provides: In the case of any Māori freehold land that is vested in a trustee, every person who is absolutely entitled to any beneficial interest in the land has the same capacity to alienate that interest as that person would have if the legal interest were vested in that person. Trusts are provided for under the Act and are commonly used to facilitate the administration and development of Māori lands. Not only does the Court as part of its title register record the names of the trustees as legal owners, it also maintains a record of the beneficial owners of any lands subject to a trust. That record is kept current by entry of any orders of succession or alienation affecting Māori lands. The Act acknowledges the difference between legal ownership and beneficial ownership in its requirement for registration of Court orders in the Land Transfer Office. The effect of Sections 122 and 123 is to exclude from that requirement any order vesting the beneficial ownership of the land or any interest in the land in any person other than a person in whom the legal ownership is vested. Section 127(1) requires the Registrar of the Court to establish and maintain a record (in subsections (2) and (4) of this section referred to as an ownership list) of the legal and beneficial ownership of all Maori freehold land and in the district and of any trusts affecting the land or any individual interest in the land. 2 3 Whaanga Mahia Township Sections 90 and 91 (2000) 34 Gisborne Appellate Court MB 12 (34 APGS 12). Ibid at MB

6 117 Taitokerau MB 250 It is apparent that where in the Act there is reference to beneficial owners and beneficial ownership then generally this refers to those owners who have been determined by the Court and entered in its title records. We caution, however, that we have not made an exhaustive study of the Act and the use of those or similar terms need to be construed according to the context in which they are used. By way of example we refer to the words beneficially entitled as they appear in the following sections Section 165(1) Subject to subsection (2) of this section, where any Maori freehold land or any undivided interest in any such land is held by any person acting in a representative capacity, the Court may, by order, vest the land or interest in the person or persons beneficially entitled to it, or in some other person acting in a representative capacity for those persons or the person through whom they claim. Section 170(1) (1) In this Part of this Act, the term owners, in relation to any area of land, means the persons who are beneficially entitled to that land in fee simple as tenants in common, whether legal or equitable or, in the case of any such persons who are deceased, their administrators; In Section 165 the persons beneficially entitled are those who can claim an entitlement to the legal estate. In Section 170 the persons who are beneficially entitled are not those who can claim an interest but those who have been determined as beneficial owners by the Court. The context of the Part of the Act within which Section 170 falls and the Regulations applying thereto pertaining to meetings and voting rights requires this interpretation so that for those purposes the owners are conclusively determined. [15] The Court went on to conclude that where s 133(3) refers to general land beneficially owned by one or more Māori, that can include those persons who the Court is satisfied are entitled to succeed to the interests of a deceased owner. Importantly for present purposes, the Court s general conclusion was that where the Act refers to beneficial owners or beneficial ownership, that relates to those owners determined by the Court and entered into its title records; that is, owners of the freehold estate of the land. [16] I conclude that where s 328(1)(a) refers to the owner of any beneficial interest in the land, that means an owner of a freehold interest in the land as recorded in the Court s ownership list. Arguably that could extend to a person determined to be entitled in equity to a freehold interest in the land. But in my view, it could not relate to a person who holds anything less than a freehold interest in the land. For reasons that I will expand on shortly, I conclude that Sheree is not entitled in equity to a freehold interest in the land. She otherwise does not own any beneficial interest in the land. As such, she does not qualify for an occupation order under s 328(1)(a) of the Act.

7 117 Taitokerau MB 251 [17] In terms of s 328(1)(b), Mr Mathias argues that Sheree qualifies as a person entitled to succeed to the beneficial interests of a deceased owner as she comes within one of the classes of persons eligible to receive interests from Walter under Part 4 of the Act. That is, notwithstanding that Vaughan is the only person entitled to succeed to Walter s Māori land interests under his will, Mr Mathias maintains that for the purposes of an occupation order, Sheree qualifies under s 328(1)(b) by simply coming within one of the eligible succession classes. [18] I reject Mr Mathias argument. Plainly s 328(1)(b) is concerned with ensuring that the legally-entitled successors to deceased owners are able to secure an occupation order notwithstanding that they have not completed succession. Sheree is not entitled to succeed to Walter s interests because of his will. Further, even if Walter had not left a will and his estate was intestate, Sheree would not have been a person entitled to succeed as Walter s siblings (including Sheree s mother) would have been entitled to succeed. Were Mr Mathias submission to be correct, then in respect of any block of Māori freehold land where there are deceased owners, any person who theoretically could be entitled to succeed under ss 108 or 109 of the Act, but who in fact is not entitled to succeed, could apply for an occupation order. That would be an absurd outcome. [19] Leaving to one side Sheree s inability to qualify under s 328(1) for an occupation order, there are two further reasons why an occupation order cannot be made in the present instance. [20] First, I simply could not be satisfied for the purposes of s 329(2)(b) of the Act that there is a sufficient degree of support for the occupation order. The sole successor to the land opposes an occupation order. That is, without Vaughan s consent, an occupation order is not possible. [21] Second, Mr Mathias framed the application for an occupation order as a form of relief that the Court is able to grant where someone claims an equitable interest in land by reason of either a trust or equitable estoppel. But the occupation order regime under Part 15 is not a form of equitable remedy available to the Court at its discretion. It is a particular statutory interest in the land that can only be granted where the statutory criteria

8 117 Taitokerau MB 252 are satisfied. If Sheree is able to make out a claim to an equitable interest in the land, then her remedy must be under s 18(1)(a) and not under Part 15 of the Act. Equitable interest in the land [22] Sheree does not face the same jurisdictional hurdles in relation to her claim to an equitable interest in the land. Although her original application was under s 328 of the Act only, by the time of the final hearing on 24 March 2014 Mr Mathias was also relying on s 18(1)(a) of the Act to claim an equitable interest in the land. Section 18(1)(a) provides: 18 General jurisdiction of Court (1) In addition to any jurisdiction specifically conferred on the Court otherwise than by this section, the Court shall have the following jurisdiction: (a) To hear and determine any claim, whether at law or in equity, to the ownership or possession of Maori freehold land, or to any right, title, estate, or interest in any such land or in the proceeds of the alienation of any such right, title, estate, or interest: [23] Mr Mathias argues that the actions of Walter in encouraging Sheree to build a house on the land resulted in a trust in relation to her interest in the land. Alternatively, Mr Mathias relies on the doctrine of equitable estoppel to claim that interest in the land. [24] Exactly what was the nature of the interest Sheree claimed was not always clearly articulated in the current proceeding. In her affidavit of 19 March 2014 Sheree framed that interest in different ways. She claimed a right to remain living on the land and for me to gift my right of occupation by will when I die (paragraph 7); permission not only for me and my family to live their but for my descendants to continue to live in the house which was to be built at my expense, following my death (paragraph 26); and I do not accept that Uncle Walter only wanted me to be able to live there as long as I like, i.e. upon my death my children who were raised in my home no longer have a right to the home or live in the home that I earlier built. To me it was clear that what he wanted was for me and my family to have a perpetual place to live on the land (paragraph 60). [25] When I pressed Mr Mathias on the nature of the interest his client was claiming, he explained that it could be an occupation order or could be the same relief under s 18(1)(a).

9 117 Taitokerau MB 253 That may entail an interest in the land. Ultimately, he said Sheree was entitled to the relief which would put her in a position that she was given the expectation she could have. 4 [26] There is no doubt that the Court has the jurisdiction under s 18(1)(a) to grant relief broadly in the nature of that claimed by Sheree. In Stock v Morris Wainui 2D2B I discussed the case law concerning s 18(1)(a) of the Act and claims by non-owners of Māori land to ownership of improvements on the land a slightly different scenario from the present one, as the ownership of the house is not in dispute but rather the underlying right (if any) to an interest in the land. I summarised the law as follows: 5 [70] The following principles can be distilled from these cases. There is no bar to the Court making a s 18(1)(a) order in favour of a non-owner. However, an order vesting interests in the land or a right to possession of the land (or part of it) in favour of a non-owner will likely offend the kaupapa and provisions of the Act. Although in Grace the Court of Appeal did not completely rule out that possibility. Where the Court concludes that a non-owner is entitled to equitable relief, the Court will in the first place look to awarding monetary compensation. If monetary compensation is inappropriate, the Court may award ownership of the house if it can be removed from the land. The Court will take into account the non-owner s free occupation of the land as a factor. Ultimately, each case depends on its own facts. [27] Sheree s claim to an interest in the land via a trust is through a constructive trust she does not claim an express trust and there is no written declaration by Walter to support an express trust. In a recent decision in Tipene v Tipene Motatau 2 Section 49A4F Judge Doogan discussed the principles that apply to claims of a constructive trust. 6 In referring to the Court of Appeal decision in Lankow v Rose, 7 Judge Doogan noted the following principles: 8 [53] In that case the Court of Appeal awarded a de facto partner a beneficial interest in a property legally owned by her former partner. The Court did so by imposing a constructive trust. Equity cannot alter or interfere with the defendant s legal estate. However, on the premise that the defendant is acting unconscionably by denying the claimant a beneficial interest, equity treats the defendant as a constructive trustee for the legal estate to the extent of the claimants assessed interest. By Taitokerau MB 176 (78 TTK 176). Stock v Morris Wainui 2D2B (2012) 41 Taitokerau MB 121 (41 TTK 121) at [70]. Tipene v Tipene Motatau 2 Section 49A4F (2014) 85 Taitokerau MB 2 (85 TTK 2). Lankow v Rose CA 176/93, 2 December Ibid at [53]-[54].

10 117 Taitokerau MB 254 this means equity requires the defendant to account to the claimant for her interest. [54] The Court of Appeal identified four features which if demonstrated would mean it would be unconscionable for the legal owner to deny the claimant an interest. In these circumstances, the Court would intervene to impose a constructive trust. A claimant must show: a) Contributions, direct or indirect, to the property in question; b) The expectation of an interest therein; c) That such expectation is a reasonable one; d) That the defendant would reasonably expect to yield the claimant an interest. [28] The claim to an equitable interest in the land by reason of equitable estoppel relies on similar criteria: 9 (a) A belief of expectation has been created or encouraged through some action, representation or omission to act by the party against whom the estoppel is alleged; (b) The belief of expectation has been relied on by the party alleging the estoppel; (c) Detriment will be suffered if the belief or expectation is departed from; and (d) It would be unconscionable for the party against whom the estoppel is alleged to depart from the belief or expectation. [29] Turning to the evidence, I find that Walter clearly wanted to help out his niece by allowing Sheree to build her home on his land. This was no short-term gesture. Had he wanted to help out Sheree on a short-term basis, Walter could simply have allowed her to live in the homestead. The fact that Walter allowed Sheree to build her own house on the land, and mortgaged the land on two occasions, tells me that he saw this commitment as being a long-term one for the benefit of Sheree and her young family. The relationship 9 Andrew Butler (ed), Equity and Trusts in New Zealand (second ed, Thomson Reuters, Wellington, 2009 (at pp )).

11 117 Taitokerau MB 255 between Walter and Sheree remained sound, and there was certainly no evidence of a fallout between Walter and Sheree prior to Walter s death. [30] What remains puzzling is what Walter contemplated for Sheree following his death and Vaughan succeeding to the land. I note in this regard that Walter s will is a very simple document, containing three clauses and comprising one page only, though prepared by solicitors. There is no evidence that Walter turned his mind to Sheree s situation when he gave instructions for the will. Yet by that time Sheree s house had been on the land for 13 years, and Walter had granted two mortgages over the land. [31] Notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency between the will and Sheree s ongoing occupation of the land, I conclude that Walter s attitude to Sheree s situation was consistent throughout. In agreeing to Sheree building on the land and granting mortgages, Walter agreed to Sheree s long-term occupation of that part of the land. He knew that it would take many years for Sheree to pay off the loan, and he knew that a new house would be expected to last at least 50 years. He may have assumed that because the loan was from HCNZ, that arrangement automatically gave Sheree some form of right to occupy the land but that is speculation on my part. Importantly, I do not believe Walter intended to negate the arrangement with Sheree when he executed his will. There is no evidence that their relationship had deteriorated or that he begrudged her being on the land. [32] In terms of the criteria necessary to establish a constructive trust or equitable estoppel, I conclude: (a) Through his words and actions, Walter represented to Sheree that she would have long-term occupation of the land associated with her house. However, he did not turn his mind to what legal steps or additional legal steps might need to be taken to secure Sheree s right to occupy that area of land. I return below to the question of the length of the term of occupation contemplated by Walter and Sheree; (b) Sheree relied on Walter s representations and actions by building the house on the land, paying the mortgage loan repayments and rates for the land, improving that part of the land on which the house is situated, and taking

12 117 Taitokerau MB 256 care of the land as a whole. Her reliance on the expectation that she would have long-term occupation of that part of the land was entirely reasonable; (c) Sheree will suffer detriment if her long-term occupation of the land were to be denied. She would be required to uplift her house and shift it to another piece of land. There is no evidence that Sheree owns any other land. She may therefore be forced to sell her home. Furthermore, the potential for her right of occupation to be denied at any time creates significant uncertainty for her and her family in terms of their home; (d) It would be unconscionable for Walter, Alison or Vaughan to depart from the understanding between Walter and Sheree concerning long-term occupation of the land. There is nothing to suggest that Walter intended departing from that arrangement. It would seem that he trusted that the arrangement would survive his death and Vaughan taking ownership of the land. To the extent that Walter failed to provide for Sheree s arrangement in his will, then Walter s failure does amount to unconscionable conduct in that it potentially allows the arrangement to be defeated. It would be equally unconscionable for Alison or Vaughan to deny Sheree s long-term occupation of the land. [33] Alison and Vaughan s counsel, Bernadette Arapere, submitted that there was delay by Sheree in applying to the Court for a remedy, that Equity does not reward the dilatory, and that Sheree should not be entitled to relief. I reject the claim of delay. The evidence is that there was no challenge to Sheree s occupation of the land prior to the filing of the succession application in June When Sheree became aware of that application, and its potential to disturb her occupation of the land, she filed documents with the Court setting out her interest in the land and her position in relation to the succession application. All of this was done in a reasonably timely manner. I do not consider that she needed to take the steps to secure her interest prior to late 2013, as there had not been any challenge to her occupation of the land. [34] The task for the Court is to ensure that equity is done between the parties. Sheree is entitled to be put in the position she and Walter could reasonably expect when the arrangement was first made to build the house. Sheree did not expect ownership of the

13 117 Taitokerau MB 257 land. She expected to be able to use the house for her lifetime and for her children to be able to use it. Walter contemplated the same thing. That is not an interest in the freehold of the land. The arrangement must have some parameters. As for the term of that right of occupation, Walter and Sheree did not fix on a specific term. It is therefore up to the Court to decide what is fair. In my view the right should be for Sheree s lifetime plus 20 years (to give the children some security) or for 50 years from 1989 (reflecting the nominal lifespan of a house), whichever is the greater period. [35] That right is personal to Sheree and her descendants. It is not unlimited, and with it goes an obligation to continue to meet the mortgage repayments and rates associated with that part of the land, to fence-off the house site, and to not interfere with Vaughan s use of the balance of the land. [36] As noted earlier, Sheree s equitable interest cannot give rise to an occupation order. However, the order I make under s 18(1)(a) of the Act will determine ownership of the house and entitlement to occupy the house site. That order will be able to be succeeded to by her children. [37] If at any point in time Sheree wishes to remove the house from the land then her right of occupation will come to an end. At the end of the term of occupation Sheree and her successors can remove the house and improvements from the land, but if they fail to do so ownership of the house and improvements will be forfeited in favour of the owner of the land. [38] The actual area of the land that Sheree is entitled to occupy needs to be properly defined. I note that in support of the application Sheree identified the area on an aerial photograph. It should be a simple matter of her arranging for a surveyor to define that area on an occupation plan. However, one small change is required. At present access to the balance of the land is via the neighbouring property occupied by Sheree s mother. That may work for now, but whether that arrangement works in the future is simply unknown. In my view, Sheree must leave a strip of, say, five metres on the southern boundary of the land unimpeded for future access to the rear of the land. The surveyor can show that on his occupation plan.

14 117 Taitokerau MB 258 Succession to land interests [39] Vaughan is entitled to succeed to the land interests, though the land itself is subject to the orders I make confirming that Sheree owns the house and is entitled to occupy the house site. I will therefore make the orders in favour of Vaughan pursuant to ss 113 and 118 of the Act. Outcome [40] Pursuant to the Act I make orders as follows: (a) Section 113 determining that Vaughan Walter Lomax is entitled to succeed to the interests of Walter William Wihongi in Parahaki 1E2; (b) Section 118 vesting the said land interests in Vaughan Walter Lomax; (c) Section 18(1)(a) determining that Sheree Harawene is the owner of the house erected on Parahaki 1E2 in or about 1989 and the associated improvements, and that Sheree Harawene and her successors are entitled to occupy the house site on Parahaki 1E2 for the lifetime of Sheree Harawene plus 20 years or until 31 December 2039, whichever is the greater period, on the following terms: (i) Sheree Harawene and her successors shall pay all payments due on the loan secured by mortgages over the land; (ii) Sheree Harawene and her successors shall pay any rates and other charges due in relation to the house site; (iii) Sheree Harawene and her successors shall not interfere with the land owner s use and occupation of the balance of the land and shall ensure that access to the balance of the land is available; (iv) The right of occupation of the land shall come to an end if Sheree Harawene or her successors remove the house from the land; and

15 117 Taitokerau MB 259 (v) At the conclusion of the term of occupation of the land Sheree Harawene and her successors may remove the house and improvements from the land failing which ownership of the house and improvements shall be forfeited to the owner of the land. (d) Section 73 the order in (c) above is conditional upon Sheree Harawene engaging a surveyor to prepare an acceptable occupation plan of her house site per the diagram filed with her application but excluding a 5 metre access-way on the southern boundary to provide access to the rear of the land. That plan is to be filed by 31 March [41] Finally, Ms Arapere sought leave to address costs. I conclude that in the present circumstances where both parties have been partly successful, the Court was asked to give effect to an historic oral family arrangement, the close relationship of the parties and the need for that relationship to heal, costs should lie where they fall. Pronounced in open Court at 4.33 pm in Whangarei on Wednesday this 2 nd December day of D J Ambler JUDGE

Hearing: 11 March 2014, 23 Te Waipounamu MB 297 (23 TWP 297) (Heard at Dunedin) 1 May 2014, 25 Te Waipounamu MB 32 (25 TWP 32) (Heard at Christchurch)

Hearing: 11 March 2014, 23 Te Waipounamu MB 297 (23 TWP 297) (Heard at Dunedin) 1 May 2014, 25 Te Waipounamu MB 32 (25 TWP 32) (Heard at Christchurch) 30 Te Waipounamu MB 168 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE WAIPOUNAMU DISTRICT A20140001717 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF Section 18(1)(a) Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Arahura No 2A WIRITANGI PAPAKURA

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A Applicant. RUAPEHU DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A Applicant. RUAPEHU DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent 312 Aotea MB 137 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20120013530 UNDER Section 133 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Section 4 Block IV Town of Ongarue DEPUTY

More information

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 5 TAITOKERAU MB 234 A A A

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 5 TAITOKERAU MB 234 A A A IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF 5 TAITOKERAU MB 234 A20090006326 A20090006327 A20090006328 Sections 135, 151, 158 and 338, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A LAVINIA LISA ROBERTS Applicant. JUDGMENT (No 2) OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A LAVINIA LISA ROBERTS Applicant. JUDGMENT (No 2) OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG 162 Taitokerau MB 103 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20130001016 UNDER Section 326B, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Te Touwai B19A1 LAVINIA LISA ROBERTS

More information

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 21 Taitokerau MB 172 (21 TTK 172) A Applicant

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 21 Taitokerau MB 172 (21 TTK 172) A Applicant IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 21 Taitokerau MB 172 (21 TTK 172) A20100009225 UNDER Sections 131 and 133, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Ohawini A6 BETWEEN DEPUTY

More information

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 15 TAITOKERAU MB 3 (15 TTK 3) A Applicant. TE BACH 2007 LIMITED Affected Party

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 15 TAITOKERAU MB 3 (15 TTK 3) A Applicant. TE BACH 2007 LIMITED Affected Party IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 15 TAITOKERAU MB 3 (15 TTK 3) A20080015067 UNDER Section 131, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Ohawini D8 BETWEEN AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Applicant. STEWART RUDDELL Respondent. (Heard at Chambers, Whangarei)

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Applicant. STEWART RUDDELL Respondent. (Heard at Chambers, Whangarei) 162 Taitokerau MB 50 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20160005817 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Oue 2B2B2 TE REO HAU Applicant

More information

POLICY: SUCCESSION. 1.0 Introduction. 2.0 Policy Statement. 3.0 Objectives. 4.0 Background Legislation

POLICY: SUCCESSION. 1.0 Introduction. 2.0 Policy Statement. 3.0 Objectives. 4.0 Background Legislation POLICY: SUCCESSION 1.0 Introduction 1.1 This policy sets out Thames Valley Housing s (TVH s) position regarding the rights of a relative to take over a tenancy on the death of a tenant. Succession is the

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Applicant. ERIC HIKUWAI Respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Applicant. ERIC HIKUWAI Respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER 143 Taitokerau MB 135 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150005204 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Wainui D Block RAIHA FREDRICSEN

More information

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT 34 Waikato Maniapoto MB 111 (34 WMN 111) A Applicant

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT 34 Waikato Maniapoto MB 111 (34 WMN 111) A Applicant IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO-MANIAPOTO DISTRICT 34 Waikato Maniapoto MB 111 (34 WMN 111) A20110003431 UNDER Section 135, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an application

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Re: Browne [2018] QSC 297 PARTIES: FRANCIS CLAUDE BROWNE (applicant) FILE NO: BS12029 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Trial Division Originating application DELIVERED

More information

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT UNDER 7 TAITOKERAU MB 234 (7 TTK 234) A20100001163 A20090004974 A20100002419 A20100002412 A20100002420 A20100001092 A20090019669 A20090019663

More information

10 April But rarely is this the position in practice.

10 April But rarely is this the position in practice. Bank Guarantees 10 April 2014 Most construction contracts for large scale infrastructure and commercial projects require contractors to provide a principal with an unconditional bank guarantee to secure

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. COLONIAL HOMES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED Formerly called BALMAIN PARK LIMITED AND

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. COLONIAL HOMES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED Formerly called BALMAIN PARK LIMITED AND THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 47 OF 2007 BETWEEN COLONIAL HOMES AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES LIMITED Formerly called BALMAIN PARK LIMITED AND APPELLANT KASSINATH

More information

Section 328, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act HUIA CONNOR ISABELLA MEHANA KENNETH CONNOR NGAIRE COOPER Applicants

Section 328, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act HUIA CONNOR ISABELLA MEHANA KENNETH CONNOR NGAIRE COOPER Applicants IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 19 Taitokerau MB 1 (19 TTK 1) A20060016725 A20060018000 A20060018020 A20060018021 A20060018022 UNDER Section 328, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE WAIPOUNAMU DISTRICT A Sections 18(1)(d) and 20, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE WAIPOUNAMU DISTRICT A Sections 18(1)(d) and 20, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 16 Te Waipounamu MB 63 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TE WAIPOUNAMU DISTRICT A20090014879 UNDER Sections 18(1)(d) and 20, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Section 14 Block XIII Tautuku

More information

DID ANYONE NOTICE? CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF PROPERTY NOTICES

DID ANYONE NOTICE? CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF PROPERTY NOTICES DID ANYONE NOTICE? CHALLENGES TO THE VALIDITY OF PROPERTY NOTICES Introduction Those involved in mixed-use developments will come across just about every type of property notice: o contractual break notices;

More information

EXPOSURE DRAFT - FOR COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ONLY. Deadline for comment: 10 August Please quote reference: PUB00220.

EXPOSURE DRAFT - FOR COMMENT AND DISCUSSION ONLY. Deadline for comment: 10 August Please quote reference: PUB00220. Deadline for comment: 10 August 2016. Please quote reference: PUB00220. QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB XX/XX INCOME TAX DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND All legislative references are to the Income Tax Act 2007

More information

In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto ~istrict

In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto ~istrict Minute Book: 80 T 144 In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto ~istrict File: A20050001768 IN THE MATTER of an application by Peter & Jennifer Rolleston and James & Elva Borell for a partition

More information

HSBC plc v Dyche, HSBC plc v Collelldevall [2009] EWHC 2954 High Court

HSBC plc v Dyche, HSBC plc v Collelldevall [2009] EWHC 2954 High Court UNLOCKING LAND LAW Update August 2011 Thompson v Foy [2010] 1 P & CR 16 High Court Issues: Actual occupation; priority under Land Registration Act 2002; undue influence and proprietary estoppel Facts:

More information

RECOVERING COSTS IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL. CIH Home Ownership & Leasehold Management Conference & Exhibition 5 and 6 February 2014

RECOVERING COSTS IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL. CIH Home Ownership & Leasehold Management Conference & Exhibition 5 and 6 February 2014 RECOVERING COSTS IN THE FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL INTRODUCTIONS MARK OAKLEY Why is it important? How else would the costs be paid? Do you really want to? Funding litigation Typical Scenarios Lessee Application

More information

Hong Kong Bar Association's comments on Land Titles Ordinance Draft Amendment Bill ( version)

Hong Kong Bar Association's comments on Land Titles Ordinance Draft Amendment Bill ( version) Hong Kong Bar Association's comments on Land Titles Ordinance Draft Amendment Bill (16-6-06 version) Introduction The Bar refers to the letter dated 10 th July 2006 from the Land Registrar whereby the

More information

RENT REVIEWS OF MĀORI RESERVED LANDS. Prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri for the Māori Affairs Committee. 18 May 2011

RENT REVIEWS OF MĀORI RESERVED LANDS. Prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri for the Māori Affairs Committee. 18 May 2011 RENT REVIEWS OF MĀORI RESERVED LANDS Prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri for the Māori Affairs Committee Background 18 May 2011 Māori Reserved Lands 1. In the 19th century the New Zealand Government and the New

More information

Bankruptcy and the Family Home

Bankruptcy and the Family Home Bankruptcy and the Family Home How the Bankruptcy Act applies to a bankrupt's family home is often misunderstood. The loss of the bankrupt's family home is usually felt more intensely than the loss of

More information

Disclaimer. Ministry of Justice: Copyright statement

Disclaimer. Ministry of Justice: Copyright statement SUCCESSION TE TURE WHENUA MĀORI ACT 1993 Disclaimer While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this publication, it has been written, edited, published, and made available strictly on the

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE CLAIM: No. 275 of 2007 AND

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE CLAIM: No. 275 of 2007 AND IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE 2007 CLAIM: No. 275 of 2007 BETWEEN: WARD MCGREGOR CLAIMANT AND WILLIAM NEAL AND ATTORNEY GENERAL (for the Minister of Natural Resources and the Environment DEFENDANT/ANCILLARY

More information

MANAGEMENT RIGHTS DEED

MANAGEMENT RIGHTS DEED MANAGEMENT RIGHTS DEED This Deed dated the day of 200 BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, in right of the Government of New Zealand acting by and through Brian Miller, Manager Radio Spectrum Policy and Planning,

More information

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGE FINANCING

CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGE FINANCING CONDOMINIUM MORTGAGE FINANCING INTRODUCTION: Condominium mortgage financing is generally in one of two forms. During development of the project, the owner/declarant will have blanket mortgage financing

More information

REPORTS ON TITLE. 2. Meet with the clients, in advance of the closing, to show them the title, explain the title to them;

REPORTS ON TITLE. 2. Meet with the clients, in advance of the closing, to show them the title, explain the title to them; REPORTS ON TITLE The Land Registration Act has created a new system of certifying title to real property in Nova Scotia. It is important to realize that although it is now the government which certifies

More information

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts. PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to May 30, 2009. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This

More information

Policy Scope This policy applies to individuals who are seeking to succeed to a Phoenix tenancy.

Policy Scope This policy applies to individuals who are seeking to succeed to a Phoenix tenancy. SUCCESSION POLICY Responsible Officer Director of Customer Services Aim of the Policy The purpose of this policy is to ensure that Phoenix fulfils its statutory and contractual obligations for succession

More information

Sincerity Among Landlords & Tenants

Sincerity Among Landlords & Tenants Sincerity Among Landlords & Tenants By Mark Alexander, founder of "The Landlords Union" Several people who are looking to rent a property want to stay for the long term, especially when they have children

More information

THE HOUSE IS MINE, SAYS THE DIVORCE ORDER. NOT SO, ARGUES EX-SPOUSE S CREDITOR: WHEN IS THE SPOUSE S TITLE UNASSAILABLE?

THE HOUSE IS MINE, SAYS THE DIVORCE ORDER. NOT SO, ARGUES EX-SPOUSE S CREDITOR: WHEN IS THE SPOUSE S TITLE UNASSAILABLE? THE HOUSE IS MINE, SAYS THE DIVORCE ORDER. NOT SO, ARGUES EX-SPOUSE S CREDITOR: WHEN IS THE SPOUSE S TITLE UNASSAILABLE? Fischer v Ubomi Ushishi Trading and Others (1085/2017) [2018] ZASCA 154 (19 November

More information

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 15 Taitokerau MB 76 (15 TTK 76) A Applicant

IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 15 Taitokerau MB 76 (15 TTK 76) A Applicant IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT 15 Taitokerau MB 76 (15 TTK 76) A20060024640 UNDER Section 131, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Keti A2 BETWEEN DEPUTY REGISTRAR

More information

EXCLUSIVITY OR OPTION AGREEMENT SALE OF [ NAME OF PROPERTY] DATED THE [ ] DAY OF [ MONTH ] relating to. between [PARTY 1] and

EXCLUSIVITY OR OPTION AGREEMENT SALE OF [ NAME OF PROPERTY] DATED THE [ ] DAY OF [ MONTH ] relating to. between [PARTY 1] and DATED THE [ ] DAY OF [ MONTH ] 2015 ------------ EXCLUSIVITY OR OPTION AGREEMENT relating to SALE OF [ NAME OF PROPERTY] between [PARTY 1] and [PARTY 2] CONTENTS CLAUSE 1. Interpretation 1 2. Seller's

More information

LEVEL 3 - UNIT 4 LAND LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2010

LEVEL 3 - UNIT 4 LAND LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2010 Note to Candidates and Tutors: LEVEL 3 - UNIT 4 LAND LAW SUGGESTED ANSWERS JUNE 2010 The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points students should

More information

Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill. Written submission to the Infrastructure and Capital investment Committee

Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill. Written submission to the Infrastructure and Capital investment Committee Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Bill Written submission to the Infrastructure and Capital investment Committee Background: The National Landlords Association (NLA) The National Landlords Association

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A THE MĀORI TRUSTEE Applicant RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A THE MĀORI TRUSTEE Applicant RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER 124 Taitokerau MB 231 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20120011207 UNDER Section 131, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN Pt Sec 1 Blk 1 Punakitere SD THE

More information

Standard for the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act 1981 LINZS15005

Standard for the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act 1981 LINZS15005 Standard for the acquisition of land under the Public Works Act 1981 LINZS15005 Version date: 20 February 2014 Table of contents Terms and definitions... 5 Foreword... 6 Introduction... 6 Purpose... 6

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FRANK J. NOA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 13, 2005 v No. 255310 Otsego Circuit Court AGATHA C. NOA, ESTATE OF MICHAEL J. LC No. 03-010202-CH NOA and M&M ENTERPRIZES,

More information

Changes of Ownership Manual DISCLAIMER

Changes of Ownership Manual DISCLAIMER Who Can Be an Owner? DISCLAIMER The materials in this training manual are for demonstration purposes only. The forms are subject to change at any time without notice. Use of outdated forms may result in

More information

IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING

IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN RE CLINTON TOWNSHIP, ) NEW JERSEY COUNCIL HUNTERDON COUNTY ) ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING ) ) OPINION This matter arises as a result of an Order to Show Cause issued by the New Jersey Council on Affordable

More information

Laceys Guide To Right To Manage

Laceys Guide To Right To Manage What is the Right to Manage? This is the right for flat owners on long leases to form a company to take over the management of their block of flats without purchasing the freehold. Previously the right

More information

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hearing dates: Date of orders: Decision date: Jurisdiction: Before: Decision: Catchwords: Lam v Somchanmavong [2016] NSWCATCD

More information

To be vested or not to be vested that is the declaration by Denis Barlin, FTIA, Barrister, 13 Wentworth Selborne Chambers

To be vested or not to be vested that is the declaration by Denis Barlin, FTIA, Barrister, 13 Wentworth Selborne Chambers FEATURE To be vested or not to be vested that is the declaration by Denis Barlin, FTIA, Barrister, 13 Wentworth Selborne Chambers Abstract: A recent stamp duty decision by the New South Wales Court of

More information

Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds» By Brad Dashoff and John Antonacci. Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds

Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds» By Brad Dashoff and John Antonacci. Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds A service of the ABA General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division Law Trends & News PRACTICE AREA NEWSLETTER REAL ESTATE Understanding Real Property Interests and Deeds» By Brad Dashoff and John Antonacci

More information

INCOME TAX DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND, AND START DATE FOR 2-YEAR BRIGHT-LINE TEST

INCOME TAX DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND, AND START DATE FOR 2-YEAR BRIGHT-LINE TEST QUESTION WE VE BEEN ASKED QB 17/02 INCOME TAX DATE OF ACQUISITION OF LAND, AND START DATE FOR 2-YEAR BRIGHT-LINE TEST All legislative references are to the Income Tax Act 2007 (the Act) unless otherwise

More information

Dealing with fixtures on a lease renewal A trap for the unwary? Tom Roscoe, Wilberforce Chambers. April 2014

Dealing with fixtures on a lease renewal A trap for the unwary? Tom Roscoe, Wilberforce Chambers. April 2014 Dealing with fixtures on a lease renewal A trap for the unwary? Tom Roscoe, Wilberforce Chambers April 2014 Introduction 1. In negotiations or proceedings for the renewal of a lease, parties often focus

More information

JUDGMENT. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondent) v Hickin (FC) (Appellant)

JUDGMENT. Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondent) v Hickin (FC) (Appellant) Trinity Term [2012] UKSC 39 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Civ 868 JUDGMENT Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council (Respondent) v Hickin (FC) (Appellant) before Lord Hope, Deputy President Lord Walker Lord

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 23, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael R.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA. No / Filed February 23, Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Michael R. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-087 / 10-0949 Filed February 23, 2011 MARGARET ELLIOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. WAYNE JASPER, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello

More information

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A MIRANDA HORAN Applicant

IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A MIRANDA HORAN Applicant 70 Waiariki MB 61 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20080011273 UNDER Section 289, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Hiwarau C AND MIRANDA HORAN Applicant Hearing:

More information

CASE LAW UPDATE, JUNE 2009

CASE LAW UPDATE, JUNE 2009 CASE LAW UPDATE, JUNE 2009 Unit Owner s Responsibility for Deductibles, Maintenance and Repair April 15, 2009: Xizhen Jenny Chai v. York Condominium Corporation No. 325, (Ontario Superior Court of Justice,

More information

Real Property Law Notes

Real Property Law Notes Real Property Law Notes PART I: THE CREATION AND ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS IN LAND... 3 1 An Introduction to Real Property Law... 3 2 An Introduction to the Torrens System of Land Title... 3 2.1

More information

ILLINOIS COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ACT

ILLINOIS COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ACT ILLINOIS COMMON INTEREST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION ACT INCLUDING AMENDMENTS EFFECTIVE July 14, 2015 and June 1, 2016 COURTESY OF: DICKLER, KAHN, SLOWIKOWSKI & ZAVELL, LTD. Attorneys and Counselors Suite 420

More information

PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION. Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection

PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION. Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection MEMORANDUM PLANNING & BUILDING INSPECTION County of Monterey Date: June 17, 2003 To: From: Members of the Planning Commission Dale Ellis, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Building Inspection Subject:

More information

Citation: Quinan v. MacKinnon et al. Date: PESCTD 14 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: Quinan v. MacKinnon et al. Date: PESCTD 14 Docket: GSC Registry: Charlottetown Citation: Quinan v. MacKinnon et al. Date: 20010215 2001 PESCTD 14 Docket: GSC-18139 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - TRIAL DIVISION BETWEEN: AND: ALBERT

More information

RECOVERING COSTS IN THE LVT. CIH Home Ownership & Leasehold Management Conference & Exhibition 5 and 6 February 2013

RECOVERING COSTS IN THE LVT. CIH Home Ownership & Leasehold Management Conference & Exhibition 5 and 6 February 2013 RECOVERING COSTS IN THE LVT INTRODUCTIONS MARK OAKLEY Why is it important? How else would the costs be paid? Do you really want to? Funding litigation Typical Scenarios Lessee Application regarding service

More information

LETTER TO COMPANY - DRAFT CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY LAND LAW COMMITTEE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (7 TH EDITION 2016 UPDATE)

LETTER TO COMPANY - DRAFT CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY LAND LAW COMMITTEE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (7 TH EDITION 2016 UPDATE) LETTER TO COMPANY - DRAFT CITY OF LONDON LAW SOCIETY LAND LAW COMMITTEE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (7 TH EDITION 2016 UPDATE) This is the first of two letters which may be sent by the solicitors giving the Certificate

More information

A Conveyancer s Lot Post P&P Property and Dreamvar

A Conveyancer s Lot Post P&P Property and Dreamvar A Conveyancer s Lot Post P&P Property and Dreamvar June 2018 Jason Nash Partner, BLM T +44 (0)161 838 6953 E Jason.nash@blmlaw.com The spotlight has never been so bright on the world of conveyancing as

More information

CHAPTER 1 MEMBERSHIP PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASE, SALE AND TRANSFER

CHAPTER 1 MEMBERSHIP PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASE, SALE AND TRANSFER CHAPTER 1 MEMBERSHIP 100. GENERAL 101. QUALIFICATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES 102. NON-MEMBER INVESTORS PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASE, SALE AND TRANSFER 103. PURCHASE OF MEMBERSHIP AND MECHANICS OF PURCHASE 103.A.

More information

Transfer of Land Formalities

Transfer of Land Formalities Transfer of Land Formalities may hold have a proprietary or equitable interest in the land if the request formalities are satisfied or a specifically enforceable contract exists. Formalities For GLL a

More information

DEED OF SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPERTY REDRESS

DEED OF SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPERTY REDRESS NGĀTI KURI and THE CROWN DEED OF SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE: PROPERTY REDRESS Ngāti Kuri Property Redress Schedule TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 DISCLOSURE INFORMATION AND WARRANTY 2 2 VESTING OF CULTURAL REDRESS PROPERTIES

More information

Succession and Discretionary Tenancy Policy

Succession and Discretionary Tenancy Policy Date approved: 22 November 2016 Approved by: Parent Board 1. Introduction and Aims 1.1 This Policy outlines Southway Housing Trust s (the Trust s) approach to succession. 1.2 It relates to the following

More information

WHEN IS A LANEWAY A PUBLIC HIGHWAY?

WHEN IS A LANEWAY A PUBLIC HIGHWAY? WHEN IS A LANEWAY A PUBLIC HIGHWAY? Author: Julie Davis Date: 1 September, 2016 Copyright 2016 This work is copyright. Apart from any permitted use under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced

More information

Te Ture Whenua Māori Act

Te Ture Whenua Māori Act Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1. What is the purpose of the reform? This reform is about making it easier for Māori land owners to make decisions about how their land is governed and used. It removes constraints

More information

At its 4 October 2002 meeting the Regulatory and Consents Committee resolved:

At its 4 October 2002 meeting the Regulatory and Consents Committee resolved: 1. PERIODIC DETENTION CENTRES IN THE BUSINESS 1 ZONE Officer responsible Author Environmental Services Manager Sean Elvines, DDI 941-8295 The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the estimated

More information

Answer A to Question 5

Answer A to Question 5 Answer A to Question 5 Betty and Ed s Interests Ann, Betty, and Celia originally took title to the condo as joint tenants with right of survivorship. A joint tenancy is characterized by the four unities

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS REL: 05/15/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL

DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZREADT 39 READT 013/11 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 LB AND QB Appellants AND THE REAL ESTATE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF ASHER J IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2008-404-8214 IN THE MATTER OF Section 143 of the Land Transfer Act 1952 BETWEEN AND CAPITAL + MERCHANT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND

More information

Priorities of Interests in Registered Land. Kester Lees Falcon Chambers

Priorities of Interests in Registered Land. Kester Lees Falcon Chambers Priorities of Interests in Registered Land Kester Lees Falcon Chambers OVERVIEW This seminar will cover: 1. How to protect an interest on the Register of Title. 2. The rules under Land Registration Act

More information

7 A.2d 696 Page 1 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696 (Cite as: 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696)

7 A.2d 696 Page 1 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696 (Cite as: 63 R.I. 216, 7 A.2d 696) 7 A.2d 696 Page 1 (Cite as: ) Supreme Court of Rhode Island. STANTON et al. v. SULLIVAN et al. No. 1460. July 18, 1939. Case Certified from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties. Proceeding in

More information

The central concerns of property law

The central concerns of property law 2 The central concerns of property law Introduction We saw in the previous chapter that property encompasses not only ownership but also a wide range of other rights. In this chapter, an attempt will be

More information

Real Property LAWS5017 Templates

Real Property LAWS5017 Templates Real Property LAWS5017 Templates 1 CO- OWNERSHIP: Step 1: Identify the relationship TENANTS IN COMMON A. There is a presumption that a conveyance of property to multiple people creates a tenancy in common

More information

ST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CHAPTER CONDOMINIUM ACT

ST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CHAPTER CONDOMINIUM ACT Laws of Saint Christopher Condominium Act Cap 10.03 1 ST CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS CHAPTER 10.03 CONDOMINIUM ACT and Subsidiary Legislation Revised Edition showing the law as at 31 December 2009 This is a

More information

Section 9 after Pattle

Section 9 after Pattle Section 9 after Pattle By Reuben Taylor 1. This paper examines the compensation code s approach to compensating a freehold owner for rental losses, with particular regard to section 9 and the decision

More information

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 10060) DIANA CUSSEN

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 10060) DIANA CUSSEN BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2012] NZREADT 52 Reference No: READT 078/11 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 GARY MURPHY

More information

Offer-back under the Public Works Act - a re-appraisal?

Offer-back under the Public Works Act - a re-appraisal? Property, real estate & construction 05 August 2008 Offer-back under the Public Works Act - a re-appraisal? The owners of land held under the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) may have greater security of investment

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Simpson & Ors v Jackson [2014] QSC 191 PARTIES: FILE NO: 5346 of 2014 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHERYL DIANN SIMPSON (plaintiff) TERRY STEPHEN SIMPSON

More information

DECEASED TENANT PROPERTY. Eric M. Steven, P.S. ericstevenlaw.com

DECEASED TENANT PROPERTY. Eric M. Steven, P.S. ericstevenlaw.com DECEASED TENANT PROPERTY Eric M. Steven, P.S. ericstevenlaw.com esteven@comcast.net Disposition of Personal Property of Deceased Tenants Introduction Dealing with the death of another is never easy. Dealing

More information

BOUNDARIES & SQUATTER S RIGHTS

BOUNDARIES & SQUATTER S RIGHTS BOUNDARIES & SQUATTER S RIGHTS Odd Results? The general boundary rule can have results that seem odd - for example the Land Registry s Practice Guides make it clear that they may regard you as owning land

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Wirkus v The Body Corporate for Goldieslie Park Community Titles Scheme No 20924 [2010] QSC 397 MICHELLE WIRKUS (Plaintiff) FILE NO: BS 7976 of 2008 DIVISION:

More information

Order of the Tenancy Tribunal

Order of the Tenancy Tribunal Order of the Tenancy Tribunal Residential Tenancies Act 1986 Office of the Tenancy Tribunal Tenancy Tribunal at Wellington Tenancy Address 18a Rochester Street, Wilton, Wellington 6012 Applicant Full Name

More information

Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc - [1997] 3 NZLR 641

Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc - [1997] 3 NZLR 641 Valuer-General v Mangatu Inc - [1997] 3 NZLR 641 Court of Appeal Wellington 8, 16 September 1997 Richardson P, Gault, Thomas, Keith and Tipping JJ Maori and Maori land -- Valuation of land -- Maori freehold

More information

An easement is an incorporeal hereditament, an interest which does not give the owner right to physical possession.

An easement is an incorporeal hereditament, an interest which does not give the owner right to physical possession. Easement An easement is a right which the owner of land (known as dominant tenement) has over another land (servient tenement) to compel the owner of servient tenement to allow something to be done on

More information

ELECTRONIC CONVEYANCING IN ESTATE SITUATIONS. by Bonnie Yagar, Pallett Valo LLP

ELECTRONIC CONVEYANCING IN ESTATE SITUATIONS. by Bonnie Yagar, Pallett Valo LLP ELECTRONIC CONVEYANCING IN ESTATE SITUATIONS by Bonnie Yagar, Pallett Valo LLP Although there are some differences in the way conveyancing is done in the electronic format, and still some bugs to be worked

More information

PAPER A: MĀORI RESERVED LAND COMPENSATION. Prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri for the Māori Affairs Committee

PAPER A: MĀORI RESERVED LAND COMPENSATION. Prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri for the Māori Affairs Committee PAPER A: MĀORI RESERVED LAND COMPENSATION Prepared by Te Puni Kōkiri for the Māori Affairs Committee 6 July 2011 Background Māori Reserved Land 1. Māori reserved land was created in the 19th century primarily

More information

California Bar Examination

California Bar Examination California Bar Examination Essay Question: Real Property And Selected Answers The Orahte Group is NOT affiliated with The State Bar of California PRACTICE PACKET p.1 Question Larry leased in writing to

More information

Publisher s Note 2019 Release 3 Previous release was

Publisher s Note 2019 Release 3 Previous release was Publisher s Note 2019 Release 3 Previous release was 2019 2 From Your Library: Lamont Real Estate Conveyancing This 2nd edition of Donald Lamont s classic work on real estate practice covers the various

More information

19. Assignment and Sublet

19. Assignment and Sublet Page 1 of 10 This policy guideline is intended to help the parties to an application understand issues that are likely to be relevant and what information or evidence is likely to assist them in supporting

More information

PURPOSE FOR WHICH TO BE USED

PURPOSE FOR WHICH TO BE USED The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 Made 30th March 2004 Laid before Parliament 6th April 2004 Coming into force 1st June 2004 The First Secretary of State, as respects

More information

What Every New Zealander Should Know About Relationship Property

What Every New Zealander Should Know About Relationship Property What Every New Zealander Should Know About Relationship Property ARE YOU IN A RELATIONSHIP COVERED BY THE LAW OF RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY? The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 affects the lives of almost

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 2, 2016 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 2, 2016 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 2, 2016 Session DARRYL F. BRYANT, SR. v. DARRYL F. BRYANT, JR. Appeal by Permission from the Court of Appeals Chancery Court for Davidson County No.

More information

The Hāwea-Wānaka Substitute Block. A South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 (SILNA) Block

The Hāwea-Wānaka Substitute Block. A South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 (SILNA) Block The Hāwea-Wānaka Substitute Block A South Island Landless Natives Act 1906 (SILNA) Block Contents The Hāwea-Wānaka Substitute Block... 3 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)... 5 Current Management of the

More information

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIR) Decision notice Date: 8 March 2016 Public Authority: Address: The Land Registry Trafalgar House 1 Bedford Park Croydon

More information

MORTGAGE PART 1 (This area for Land Title Office use) Page 1 of pages

MORTGAGE PART 1 (This area for Land Title Office use) Page 1 of pages LAND TITLE ACT FORM B (Section 219.1) Province of British Columbia MORTGAGE PART 1 (This area for Land Title Office use) Page 1 of pages 1. APPLICATION: (Name, address, phone number and signature of applicant,

More information

Dispute Resolution Services

Dispute Resolution Services Dispute Resolution Services Page: 1 Residential Tenancy Branch Office of Housing and Construction Standards A matter regarding DEVON PROPERTIES LTD. and [tenant name suppressed to protect privacy] DECISION

More information

Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal. Sheila Pruden, Rocky Pruden, and Loretta Pruden. -and-

Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal. Sheila Pruden, Rocky Pruden, and Loretta Pruden. -and- Before: Metis Settlements Appeal Tribunal Between: Sheila Pruden, Rocky Pruden, and Loretta Pruden -and- Ernest Pruden, Luke Pruden, Terrence Pruden, Barry Pruden, and Kikino Metis Settlement (as Land

More information

Heathrow Expansion. Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies. Interim Property Hardship Scheme. Policy Terms

Heathrow Expansion. Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies. Interim Property Hardship Scheme. Policy Terms 1 Introduction Heathrow Expansion Land Acquisition and Compensation Policies Interim Property Hardship Scheme Policy Terms 1.1 This document sets out the terms of the Interim Property Hardship Scheme (the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ( SOUTH GAUTENG)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ( SOUTH GAUTENG) 2132/13-PF 1 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ( SOUTH GAUTENG) JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : 2132/13 DATE : In the matter between THE MEDIA CUBE (PROPRIETY) LIMITED Applicant and VIVIDEND INCOME FUND

More information