After
lending his mother money for home renovations, helpful son found his sister and
his mother had conspired to cheat him out of repayment. Property Law Act orders were used to recover
payment from his sister after their mother’s death.
Double dealing in the Bradley household
followed a $10,500 loan made by Peter Bradley to his mother in 1996, used to
renovate her Blenheim home. Notionally
repayable on demand, it was agreed no demand would be made on the loan while
she still lived in the house. Interest
was payable annually at rates for first home mortgages, with unpaid interest compounding
annually. It was also agreed no
mortgages would be taken out on the home before the loan was repaid. Peter and his family lived next door. His sister Kim looked after their mother.
Peter was to learn after his mother’s
death in 2014 of considerable legal activity engineered between his sister Kim
and their mother. In 2010 a reverse
mortgage with Sentinel Custodians was registered, cashing up equity in the
home. Sentinel was repaid some $117,000
in 2013 when the home was sold to daughter Kim for its then market value of
$227,500. Unable to find the full market
price, she signed an acknowledgement of debt for $102,500 recording the balance
due. Her mother then immediately signed
a forgiveness of debt. On his mother’s
death, Peter found she owned no home and sister Kim had been released from
paying the full purchase price.
Evidence before the District Court found
Kim had joined with her mother to deliberately frustrate repayment of Peter’s
loan. In the High Court, Justice Dobson
made orders under the Property Law Act requiring Kim to pay about $43,000: the
orginal $10,500 loan plus compounding unpaid interest. He said the sale to Kim with immediate
forgiveness of about 45 per cent of the price was intended to prejudice Peter
as a creditor by leaving his mother insolvent.
There was evidence of his mother’s only other assets being bank accounts
with minimal balances.
Bradley
v. Bradley – High Court (14.10.16)
16.147