IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Minute Book: 114 WH Section 164, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

Transcription

1 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Minute Book: 114 WH UNDER IN THE MATTER OF Section 164, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Kohumaru B2A STEVE LLOYD Applicant Appearances: Steven Lloyd Tania Windelborn Ron Lloyd Tim Lloyd J A Dick Lloyd Junior Witehira (Counsel) Judgment: 6 March 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER [1] The Court has before it an application by Steven Lloyd under section 164 of the Act for he and his two brothers Ron and John to transfer all of their shares in Kohumaru B2A to their whangai sister Tania Windleborn. I note at the outset that Tania, although she was whangai'd by Wiremu and Mere Lloyd, is in fact their granddaughter being the daughter of the late Colleen Lloyd. That is an important point to make at the outset because she comes within the preferred classes of alienees and is therefore able to receive these shares in the land. [2] The application has been brought without notice in the Panui as a matter of urgency due to the imminent mortgagee sale of the land. The application is otherwise caught up in some of the complexities arising from other proceedings which relate to Kohumaru B2A and the estate of the late Mere Lloyd. Before addressing the application I must traverse briefly some of the background of the other proceedings as there is the potential for the orders that are made today to STEVE LLOYD MLC A [6 March 2007] 7$ ;, I \

2 conflict with the other proceedings which are before this Court and which may be before another Court. [3] Kohumaru B2A is owned by the three brothers, Steven, Ron and John Lloyd. They each hold 9 shares. They have appeared before me in Court today and confirm their consent to the transfer of their shares to their sister Tania Windlebom. Kohumaru B2A was previously solely owned by their late mother Mere Lloyd and it is in relation to her transfer of shares that the other proceedings have come about. I briefly set out those applications and proceedings. [4] On 3 October 1979 the Court made an order under section 440 of the Maori Affairs Act 1953 transferring all of Mere Lloyd's shares in the block to Stephen, Ron and John, they each receiving 9 shares. Sometime after Mere's death her husband Wiremu Lloyd made an application to the Chief Judge under section 45 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 challenging the transfer of the shares. On 6 December 1993 the Chief Judge dismissed that application. [5] Subsequently, High Court proceedings were issued by, I believe, two of the sisters to overturn the dismissal ofthe application by the Chief Judge. On II August 2000 Justice Rodney Hansen in the High Court granted the application for judicial review, quashed the Chief Judge's dismissal of the application and ordered the Chief Judge to reconsider the section 45 application. [6] There is some suggestion in the minutes of proceedings before this Court that Family Protection Act proceedings were also issued. It is now unclear whether that in fact took place or whether there is some confusion between the High Court judicial review proceedings and the Family Protection Act proceedings. [7] I should note that Wiremu and Mere Lloyd had 10 children, 5 sons and 5 daughters as well Tania Windlebom, who was taken into the family as a whangai daughter of Wiremu and Mere. In terms of anangements that were made with the land, Kohumaru B2A was, as I have said, transfened to 3 of the sons. Kohumaru B2B was, I believe, left by way of will to the other 2 sons, Tim and Laurence.

3 [8] Between 2001 and 2006 the section 45 application has been before the Court through various judicial conferences and site inspections. The Deputy Chief Judge has yet to issue a final ruling on that application, although I note that the resident Judge, Judge Spencer, has conducted an inquiry and has issued a report to the Chief Judge following that inquiry. The matter has not been concluded as the Deputy Chief Judge and Judge Spencer have gone to considerable lengths to give the family an opportunity to resolve the underlying issues, that is the allocation of some interests in Kohumaru B2A and Kohumaru B2B to the sisters, before disposing of the section 45 application. [9] On 30 March 2006 Deputy Chief Judge Isaac conducted ajudicial conference in Whangarei. The outcome was that the Court made a condi tional order by consent for partition of both Kohumaru B2A and B2B. In effect what was agreed at Court and given effect to by the Deputy Chief Judge is that in relation to Kohumaru B2A, each of the three brothers are to make a 5 acre section available to three of their sisters (Lydia, Jennifer and Tania (on behalf of Colleen)). In respect of Kohumaru B2B each of the two brothers are to make a 5 acre section available to their other two sisters (Necia and Elaine's family). [10] It would seem that when the patiition is completed it will resolve the section 45 application and any Family Protection Act proceedings, if in fact they have been filed. Although the essence of that agreement is recorded in the Court's minutes of 31 March 2006, it has not in fact been recorded in any deed of family arrangement or similar document. (II] The matter has now become complicated by the threatened mortgagee sale. There is before the Court a deed which is signed by some of the brothers and sisters which records a "rescue package" that has been agreed to. In essence what is to happen is that Tania Windlebom is to become the sole owner of Kohumaru B2A. She together with her husband will repay the current mortgage by drawing down a loan from the ASB, which is to be secured against their family home and also against Kohumaru B2A. The two sections for Lydia and Jennifer which are within Kohumaru B2A will be partitioned at some time in the future. I am told that the ASB is prepared to allow the release of those two sections from this land and the

4 mortgage without disturbing the loan. When the mortgage is repaid it is proposed that the land be transferred back to Steven, Ron and John. [12J The deed is silent as to whether Tania is also to receive her 5 acres and this is something that I have raised with her in Court today. She is somewhat diffident about whether she wishes to take the 5 acres or not. In my view it is something that should be spelt out clearly in the deed, for the avoidance of any future dispute. I note that Deputy Chief Judge Isaac's conditional orders contemplated that the 5 acre section would be made available for Tania and I would be reluctant to see that issue revisited. [I3J I am told that each of the sisters or their families are aware of the proposed "rescue package". I note that Lydia Lloyd and Jennifer White have executed the present deed before the Court and of course Tania Windlebom will need to execute it along with her husband. That leaves Necia BerUlett who has yet to execute it and the other sister Elaine who is deceased but her family have yet to execute the deed. [14J I am satisfied that it is appropriate that the orders be made but they must be conditional. I do not believe the orders that I make will contradict the conditional orders of Deputy Chief Judge Isaac on 3 I March 2006 and note that those orders have yet to be completed as the family have yet to agree upon placement of the sections for partition. [I5J made: I therefore am satisfied that it is appropriate that the following orders be First, pursuant to section 158 of the Act, I dispense with the need to file a special valuation. Secondly, pursuant to section 164 of the Act, there is an order vesting the total shares (comprising 27 shares) of Steven Lloyd, John Andrew and Ronald Mervyn Lloyd in Tania Rangi Windlebom by way of gift.

5 Pursuant to mle 66(3) of the Maori Land Court Rules the order is to issue immediately. [16) The orders that are made are conditional on the applicant filing with the Court by 5.00pm on 7 March 2007 an amended deed which records, in addition, first, the arrangements in relation to the partition of Tania's 5 acre section and, second, the consent of not only the current parties to the deed but also the consent of the other two brothers, Tim and Laurence and the conseqt of the sister Necia, and the consent of a representative of the family of Elaine. [17] I make those conditions because it is important that the COUl1 have a clear record that all of the children are in agreement with this "rescue package" even though some of those children do not have a direct interest in Kohumam B2A. [18] I also direct Steven Lloyd on behalf of the children with interests in Kohumam B2A and Tim Lloyd on behalf of the children with interests in Kohumam B2B, to convene a meeting of the children to get agreement on the placement of the sections for partition. I do this because it is now almost a year since the sitting before Deputy Chief Judge Isaac on 31 March 2006 and there has yet to be filed an agreed sketch plan. If that agreement can be reached then the children will need to sign a document or the sketch plan signifying their agreement to their placement of the five sections for partition for the sisters and the partition amongst the brothers. There is no reason in my view why that matter cannot be concluded within the next 3 months. [19] Given that these orders are conditional and the short timeframe within which the condition is to be satisfied, leave is granted for the application to be brought on for further hearing at short notice. [20] A copy of this decision is to be sent to Deputy Chief Judge Isaac.

6 ", / / ', / / I ~. -/ 6