Failed bid to throw out in-laws

A woman has failed in a bid to have her former parents-in-law removed from their own property.

The woman in question was Leonie Reader. She was the wife of Andrew Reader, son of Colin and Marie Reader.

In 2007, Leonie and Andrew moved into a cottage on the front of Colin and Marie’s property on Back Ormond Rd in Gisborne.

Colin and Marie lived in a threebedroom house at the rear of the property.

In 2013, by which time Leonie and Andrew had five children, Colin and Marie offered to swap homes.

The details of the agreement reached between the couples recently became a subject of dispute and a High Court hearing.

Leonie claimed that Colin and Marie had been in ‘‘extreme financial difficulty’’ when they moved houses and that she and Andrew agreed to purchase the property for $480,000, of which they would pay $200,000 and the rest would be gifted to them by Colin and Marie.

Colin and Marie said the agreement was that they would retain ownership of the property and that they agreed to sell the property to Leonie and Andrew for $200,000. But they all agreed that they would retain ownership of half the property.

Colin and Marie said they asked the solicitor handling the property transfer for them if they should get a record of this aspect of the arrangement but the solicitor told them it would be inconsistent with the position presented to the bank from which Leonie and Andrew obtained a loan.

Andrew, who is now separated from Leonie, said they always knew they were not buying the whole property, which they knew was worth a lot more than $200,000.

The matter was heard by Associate Justice Kenneth Johnston. In a recently released decision, he said the formal record of the transaction contained nothing to suggest it involved anything other than an absolute sale of the property.

But in order to dismiss Colin and Marie’s evidence as having insufficient weight to establish a prima facie claim of a caveat on the property, ‘‘the court would have to conclude that a couple nearing the end of their working lives, who were in a reasonable financial position with a significant asset with a value of $480,000, and comparatively modest debt of approximately $136,000, agreed to give $280,000 to one of their children, placing themselves in a position whereby they had less than $40,000 ... owned no home and were effectively liable to be put out on the street at any time’’, Johnston said.

Everyone had been living harmoniously on the property when Colin and Marie made the agreement, he said.

There was sufficient evidence for them to establish a caveat on the property and he made an order sustaining one.