Vendors sued over u-turn
Couple ask court to enforce property-sale agreement after long wait to take ownership
An Auckland academic and her husband are suing Vietnamese siblings after the brother and sister allegedly tried to back out of selling their house.
Dr Marewa Glover and husband Steve Piner are asking the court to enforce their unconditional sale-andpurchase agreement and award hefty penalty payments.
But the reticent vendors claim there was no written sale-andpurchase agreement and that they were misled by their Vietnamese estate agent.
Dr Glover and Mr Piner’s familyowned company SM & T Homes Ltd purchased 42 Church St in Otahuhu at auction in December 2013 as an investment nest egg with a $450,000 winning bid.
They paid a $44,000 deposit and say they shook hands with vendors Thi Kim Chu Nguyen and Vinh Hgoc Nguyen in Barfoot & Thompson’s downtown auction rooms before heading off to arrange insurance.
But it is alleged that days later, Barfoot agent Ricky Yap, who handled the sale and rejects claims of any wrongdoing, received a text message in Vietnamese from the vendors which read: “Hi Ricky, I don’t want to sell my house any more. Please cancel.”
Details of the case were outlined yesterday in the High Court at Auckland before Justice Rebecca Edwards as the out-of-pocket purchasers opened proceedings nearly two years after supposedly buying the house.
Their loaned deposit remains in a trust account while the case is settled and they say they have lost tens of thousands of dollars in rental income and interest payments as a result of the stymied sale.
The court heard the couple own a number of rental properties, including the neighbouring Church St house.
When the next-door property came on the market, they decided to buy the old railway cottage and renovate it, making a pre-purchase offer of $440,000.
The court heard the offer was accepted and the auction brought forward, where they bid another $10,000 to clinch the house.
“I did everything that was asked of me to complete the agreement,” Mr Piner told the court yesterday.
“Barfoot was in control of the ar- rangement and I relied on them.
“As far as I was concerned I had bought the property.”
Mr Piner said that after the auction, he thanked the vendors and shook hands. “They seemed pleased.”
But days later, it emerged the siblings had “changed their minds about selling”, he said.
“They had decided not to sell but did not give any reason.”
Mr Piner said the couple put a caveat on the property and their lawyer wrote to Mr and Ms Nguyen but received no response.
As the settlement date came and went, the couple delivered a translated letter to the house where Ms Nguyen was still living.
“We still didn’t get a response so we issued these proceedings.”
Mr Piner said the couple wanted the court to enforce the sale agreement so they could finally take possession of their investment property.
Barfoot is named as second defendant. Barfoot’s lawyer, Tim Rea, said the real estate firm had “no factual dispute” with Dr Glover and Mr Piner’s version of events.
It believed the couple had an enforceable contract.
The defence is due to give its opening submissions today.