This case involved a complex property dispute between the plaintiff, Roy Rawson, and the defendant, Lucinda Prescott, our client. The property, located in Browns Bay, is held in the plaintiff’s family trust, of which the defendant is a potential beneficiary.
Our firm successfully defended our client’s rights to occupy the property against summary judgement, with the case now moving towards a full trial.
Background
The defendant and her late husband had drafted and executed a contracting out agreement, which included a clause to protect the defendant in the case of her husband passing away before she does. This clause required adherence to a memorandum of wishes made in 2013 by the deceased. The deceased wished for the defendant to be appointed a beneficiary of the family trust with the right to reside in the property for life.
After the deceased’s sudden passing in 2022, the defendant continued to live at the property. The plaintiff as the sole remaining trustee of the family trust and executor of the deceased’s estate, initiated proceedings to evict the defendant. However, the defendant opposed the application citing the below reasons.
Legal Proceedings
The plaintiff sought vacant possession of the property by way of summary judgement on the grounds that the defendant had no arguable case. Arguments were raised that the contracting out agreement and memorandum of wishes were only between the defendant and the deceased and was not binding on him as trustee.
The defendant, represented by Thomas Bloy and Riona Hayes of Evolution Lawyers, presented the following three arguable defences against granting of summary judgement:
- Equitable Estoppel: The defendant claimed that the deceased’s memorandum of wishes, incorporated into the contracting out agreement, created a legitimate expectation that she could reside in the property. She argued, amongst other things, that it would be unconscionable for the plaintiff to act contrary to the deceased’s expressed intentions and that the defendant had relied to her detriment on representations made by the deceased and the trust.
- Factual Disputes: Key factual disagreements included whether the deceased changed his wishes before his death, whether the plaintiff as trustee had failed to take into account relevant considerations made in the contracting out agreement, and the nature of the occupation right for the defendant.
- Property Law Act 2007: The defendant asserted that her license to occupy required formal notice to cancel her lease under the Property Law Act 2007 which she had not received.
Court’s Findings
Associate Judge Sussock declined to grant summary judgment, finding that the defendant had an arguable case. It was held that:
- The interpretation of the contracting out agreement and memorandum of wishes involved complex legal and factual questions unsuitable for resolution through summary judgment.
- There were significant factual disputes, particularly regarding the deceased’s alleged changes to his will before his death, the trustees’ endorsement of the contracting out agreement, and the nature of the defendant’s occupation rights. Further evidence would be required to resolve the disputed facts not available to the Court in the current proceedings.
- The issue of whether the defendant’s license was contractual or bare could not be resolved without further evidence, including complete discovery by the trust or evidence of the trust’s records.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the issues required a full trial and could not be resolved on a summary judgment basis. The plaintiff’s application was declined.
This case highlights the complexities of trust and estate law, especially in cases involving blended families and overlapping personal and legal commitments.
Our firm was able to successfully defend our client’s right to occupy the property, ensuring that she was informed at each and every step of the process.