What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612032?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4612032?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612032?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9323558-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4612032?

The tribunal order states: No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression

How much money was awarded in case 4612032?

Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4612032?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4612032?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9323558-Tribunal_Order.pdf.

123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4612032 — Tenancy dispute

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612032 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Maria Donna Phillips As Administrator Of The Estate Of Maria Hokai is granted possession of the premises at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 at
59 am on Thursday 31 August 2023.
Joyce Ariki Harris is to pay $20.44 to Maria Donna Phillips As the Administrator Of The Estate of Maria Hokai in reimbursement of the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 22 August 2023.Mr Liggett appeared for the owner and Mr Mark for the occupant.
The matter was first called before me on 27 July 2023 and adjourned to today for hearing.
The premises in issue are at 123 Omaunu Rd, Kaeo (“the premises”).
The record of title to the premises records that the owner as being Maria Donna Phillips as Administrator. The transmission of the title to Maria Phillips in that capacity occurred on 20 June 2023.
The estate, of which Ms Phillips is the administrator, is that of Maria Hokai. Maria Hokai died on or about 31 May 2023. A copy of the grant of letters of administration in the estate dated 15 June 2023 were provided in evidence.
For the purposes of this decision, I propose referring to the parties respectively as “owner” and “occupier”.
The owner seeks; • A possession order pursuant to s.64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA). • Eviction pursuant to s.65 RTA on the grounds that the occupier has no lawful right of occupation of the premises. • Compensation for loss of rental. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The occupier essentially claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, as the occupier has a potential testamentary promises claim. Counsel for the owner indicated that he had only recently received instructions and was not in a position to dispute the owner claims and relied on the jurisdiction issue. Jurisdiction.
Section 10 RTA provides that where any party contends that the RTA does not apply, it shall be for that party to establish on the facts that the RTA does not apply. The burden of proving that the RTA does not apply falls on the occupier to the usual civil standard of the balance of probabilities.
In his submissions, Mr Mark referred to s.77(2)(b) RTA . That section provides that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to determine whether or not there was at any material time a tenancy agreement in force in respect of residential premises and to determine the terms of and the parties to any such agreement.
The occupier says that there has never been any tenancy agreement and that the right to occupation relied on by the occupier is pursuant to a testamentary promise made to the occupier by Sophie Taylor.
The occupier claims that Sophie Taylor was her whangai mother. The testamentary promise being to leave the premises to the occupier, her sister Toni and grandchildren. That testamentary promise was not put into effect when Sophie Taylor subsequently prepared a will.
It is relevant to record that the premises were transferred to Sophie Taylor in 2015 and then to an administrator following the death of Sophie Taylor in March 2023.
Mr Mark confirmed that he was in the process of applying for legal aid to pursue the testamentary promises claim. That claim will no doubt take quite some time to come to fruition.
Mr Mark accepted that the claim by the occupier rightly puts her into the class of being a potential beneficiary, until such time as a decision is made, at which time, the claim if successful, would make the occupier a beneficiary of the Sophie Taylor estate.
Section 65 RTA provides that the Tribunal must grant a possession order in favour of a person entitled to possession, against a person in possession of the premises as a squatter, trespasser or otherwise under right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to do so.
The premises must, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, be “residential premises”. I did not understand either party to suggest that the premises were anything other than residential premises and I find that they are residential premises.
Having made that finding, the remaining issue is whether jurisdiction occurs as a result of s.65 RTA which provides the Tribunal with the power to evict any person who does not have any lawful right to occupation.
Mr Mark accepted that the right of occupation on which his client relies is that of a potential beneficiary under a testamentary promises claim.
The authors of Westlaw’s commentary on Residential Tenancies in reference to s.65 RTA, note that “In addition to evicting actual squatters, the section has been used to evict occupants where beneficiaries of an estate have taken possession without lawful authority ( See Henderson v Douglas DC Tauranga TT 418/03 , 21 October 2003).
I find for the reasons set out above that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in this matter.
Having made that finding, I move onto the issue of the application for eviction pursuant to s.65 RTA.
These are residential premises.
The occupier is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant that right. The occupier is at best a potential beneficiary. A claim pursuant to the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 has not been filed by the occupier as of the date of this hearing.
A possession order is granted in favour of the owner. Such order to take effect at 11.59 am on Thursday 31 August 2023.
The owner claims compensation for unpaid rent in the sum of $80,000.00, being unpaid rent at $250.00 per week for the last 6 years. Counsel for the owner indicated that had a settlement been reached under which the occupier would leave the premises, the owner would have been prepared to forgo the claim. The agreement that the parties would need to have reached for this to occur would be the occupier agreeing to leaving the premises. I have made an order granting possession to the owner. In all of the circumstances of the case, and in light of the order made by the Tribunal as to possession, I dismiss the application for unpaid rent.
As Maria Donna Phillips As Administrator Of The Estate Of Maria Hokai has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the occupier to reimburse the filing fee.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4612032 — net $20.44 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$20.44
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$20.44

Order

No application for suppression has been made in this case and no suppression orders apply around publication of this decision.
Maria Donna Phillips As Administrator Of The Estate Of Maria Hokai is granted possession of the premises at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479 at
59 am on Thursday 31 August 2023.
Joyce Ariki Harris is to pay $20.44 to Maria Donna Phillips As the Administrator Of The Estate of Maria Hokai in reimbursement of the filing fee immediately.

Reasons

Both parties attended this remote teleconference hearing on 22 August 2023.Mr Liggett appeared for the owner and Mr Mark for the occupant.
The matter was first called before me on 27 July 2023 and adjourned to today for hearing.
The premises in issue are at 123 Omaunu Rd, Kaeo (“the premises”).
The record of title to the premises records that the owner as being Maria Donna Phillips as Administrator. The transmission of the title to Maria Phillips in that capacity occurred on 20 June 2023.
The estate, of which Ms Phillips is the administrator, is that of Maria Hokai. Maria Hokai died on or about 31 May 2023. A copy of the grant of letters of administration in the estate dated 15 June 2023 were provided in evidence.
For the purposes of this decision, I propose referring to the parties respectively as “owner” and “occupier”.
The owner seeks; • A possession order pursuant to s.64 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (“RTA). • Eviction pursuant to s.65 RTA on the grounds that the occupier has no lawful right of occupation of the premises. • Compensation for loss of rental. • Reimbursement of the filing fee.
The occupier essentially claims that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, as the occupier has a potential testamentary promises claim. Counsel for the owner indicated that he had only recently received instructions and was not in a position to dispute the owner claims and relied on the jurisdiction issue. Jurisdiction.
Section 10 RTA provides that where any party contends that the RTA does not apply, it shall be for that party to establish on the facts that the RTA does not apply. The burden of proving that the RTA does not apply falls on the occupier to the usual civil standard of the balance of probabilities.
In his submissions, Mr Mark referred to s.77(2)(b) RTA . That section provides that the Tribunal will have jurisdiction to determine whether or not there was at any material time a tenancy agreement in force in respect of residential premises and to determine the terms of and the parties to any such agreement.
The occupier says that there has never been any tenancy agreement and that the right to occupation relied on by the occupier is pursuant to a testamentary promise made to the occupier by Sophie Taylor.
The occupier claims that Sophie Taylor was her whangai mother. The testamentary promise being to leave the premises to the occupier, her sister Toni and grandchildren. That testamentary promise was not put into effect when Sophie Taylor subsequently prepared a will.
It is relevant to record that the premises were transferred to Sophie Taylor in 2015 and then to an administrator following the death of Sophie Taylor in March 2023.
Mr Mark confirmed that he was in the process of applying for legal aid to pursue the testamentary promises claim. That claim will no doubt take quite some time to come to fruition.
Mr Mark accepted that the claim by the occupier rightly puts her into the class of being a potential beneficiary, until such time as a decision is made, at which time, the claim if successful, would make the occupier a beneficiary of the Sophie Taylor estate.
Section 65 RTA provides that the Tribunal must grant a possession order in favour of a person entitled to possession, against a person in possession of the premises as a squatter, trespasser or otherwise under right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to do so.
The premises must, for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, be “residential premises”. I did not understand either party to suggest that the premises were anything other than residential premises and I find that they are residential premises.
Having made that finding, the remaining issue is whether jurisdiction occurs as a result of s.65 RTA which provides the Tribunal with the power to evict any person who does not have any lawful right to occupation.
Mr Mark accepted that the right of occupation on which his client relies is that of a potential beneficiary under a testamentary promises claim.
The authors of Westlaw’s commentary on Residential Tenancies in reference to s.65 RTA, note that “In addition to evicting actual squatters, the section has been used to evict occupants where beneficiaries of an estate have taken possession without lawful authority ( See Henderson v Douglas DC Tauranga TT 418/03 , 21 October 2003).
I find for the reasons set out above that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction in this matter.
Having made that finding, I move onto the issue of the application for eviction pursuant to s.65 RTA.
These are residential premises.
The occupier is not in possession pursuant to any right of occupation granted by any person with lawful authority to grant that right. The occupier is at best a potential beneficiary. A claim pursuant to the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 has not been filed by the occupier as of the date of this hearing.
A possession order is granted in favour of the owner. Such order to take effect at 11.59 am on Thursday 31 August 2023.
The owner claims compensation for unpaid rent in the sum of $80,000.00, being unpaid rent at $250.00 per week for the last 6 years. Counsel for the owner indicated that had a settlement been reached under which the occupier would leave the premises, the owner would have been prepared to forgo the claim. The agreement that the parties would need to have reached for this to occur would be the occupier agreeing to leaving the premises. I have made an order granting possession to the owner. In all of the circumstances of the case, and in light of the order made by the Tribunal as to possession, I dismiss the application for unpaid rent.
As Maria Donna Phillips As Administrator Of The Estate Of Maria Hokai has wholly succeeded with the claim I must order the occupier to reimburse the filing fee.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612032 — Tenancy dispute at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4612032 — Tenancy dispute at 123 Omaunu Road, Kaeo, RD 2, Kaeo 0479

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions