Return
of a Christchurch Redcliffs property was ordered by the High Court after
evidence Martin Round pressured his then ninety year old widowed father to give
him the property with threats of otherwise abandoning him.
An ailing and nearly
blind Eric Round was left frightened that he would be left alone when talked
into signing over the $405,000 property.
Justice Palmer said the house transfer resulted from son Martin’s undue
influence. Transactions benefiting
middle-aged children living with an elderly blind parent raise a presumption of
undue influence he said.
The court was told
Martin had been living with his father from the middle of 2011, receiving
payments of $300 per week from him.
There was evidence of blazing rows between Martin and his brother about
the standard of care provided their father.
Care givers called in to provide support described Martin as being
habitually drunk, providing minimal care and companionship for his father. The pair were described as living in squalor. There were allegations Martin had spent the
bulk of his father’s savings and had diverted to his own use earthquake
compensation Eric received from EQC and from charities providing financial
support post-earthquake.
After support services
from the Returned Services Association intervened in 2015 placing Eric in
residential care at Edith Cavill, Work and Income refused payment of a
residential care subsidy on the basis Eric had reduced his assets by gifting
his home to son Martin.
Evidence was given of Martin
arranging for his father to see a lawyer of Martin’s choosing then remaining
present when the Redcliffs’ sale was signed off. Martin impressed on his father the deal was
to be kept secret from other family members.
The gift to Martin was not the result of Eric’s free exercise of
independent will, Justice Palmer said.
Round
v. Round – High Court (14.03.17)
17.025