Son gets order over mum’s home

An 88-year-old woman has been ordered to either pay her son hundreds of thousands of dollars or sell her home of 30 years, after he successfully went to court to get his share paid out.

Justice Simon France acknowledged in his High Court judgment it was not an easy case to settle, given the competing interests.

Peggy Van Der Byl has lived in her Manawatū home for 30 years and understandably did not want to move.

But her Australia-based son, Robin Van Der Byl, 66, would be able to stop renting and secure permanent accommodation for the rest of his life if matters went his way, the judge said.

The case had its genesis in 2006, when Robin Van Der Byl moved in with his parents on weekdays, and stayed with his wife in Levin on weekends.

His father had become increasingly frail.

Robin Van Der Byl suggested building a granny flat at the back of his parents’ property, which they would live in, while he and his wife could live in the house.

The idea was generally supported by family but only Robin Van Der Byl would finance it.

A mortgage taken out to fund the flat was cleared once he sold property in Australia, which resulted in him getting a onethird share in the family home.

His father died while construction of the flat was under way, but he believed there were no further issues. The flat was built and his mother moved in.

She, however, told the court she had repeatedly said there was no need for the flat, and it was built against her wishes.

Other family members said she made it very clear she did not want it built.

The judge said stopping the flat project part way through would have been impractical and expensive, leaving the family with the foundations, joists, bearers and particle board flooring all in place.

Family members subsequently dug into the details of the home ownership, which some believed were ‘‘murky’’.

The judge said it was clear Robin Van Der Byl put $100,000 into the flat project, and his father had suggested he have a share of the home.

There was independent legal advice and everyone signed relevant documents to leave him and his mother owning a halfshare each.

Peggy Van Der Byl said she did not understand the legal documents, saying her husband took care of business matters.

‘‘If Mrs Van Der Byl had no understanding of what was happening, that was by choice,’’ the judge said.

‘‘Claims by [her] family of ‘murkiness’ are not supported by the material available.’’

Splitting Peggy Van Der Byl’s husband’s share between her and Robin Van Der Byl appeared to be an error, but Robin Van Der Byl accepted he should only get a onethird share if the judgment went his way, the judge said.

Robin Van Der Byl has since moved to Australia, divorced and been forced to give up work due to physical ailments.

While he owned a piece of land, his only income was the pension that he used to rent a room in a relative’s house, but the house was likely to be sold and he would struggle to pay market rent.

Peggy Van Der Byl lived on the property with the flat, valued online at $850,000, and got $570 per week in pension.

The judge said Peggy Van Der Byl selling the property would leave her with enough money to buy another home, while her son would be able to build a modest home he could live in mortgagefree.

‘‘He will obtain a level of security that is denied him now.’’

However, his mother would have a month after the property was valued to buy out her son’s share.

If she could not or would not buy him out, the property would then be sold and proceeds split, with Robin Van Der Byl taking a third and Peggy Van Der Byl twothirds.

‘‘If Mrs Van Der Byl had no understanding of what was happening, that was by choice.’’ Justice Simon France