Convicted fraudster Eugene de Marco was ordered to return a $120,000 deposit paid on a $1.2 million cancelled sale of his Wellington three-level home after misrepresenting weather-tightness issues.
In December 2017, Norman Hugh Anderson and Rebecca Alice Carrasco signed up to buy Mr de Marco’s property on Fortification Road, Karaka Bays. Their $1.2 million purchase was unconditional, with a five month delay before settlement. The High Court was told they subsequently received an anonymous tip-off that Mr de Marco was not to be trusted. Nearly two years later, a Serious Fraud Office prosecution saw Mr de Marco sentenced to two years five months imprisonment for fraud offences.
After being warned about Mr de Marco’s honesty, Anderson and Carrasco followed up on a weather-tightness report presented as part of the 2017 sale process. This report described the property built in the early 1990s as being in good condition, meeting current building code requirements and having no apparent weather-tightness issues. These statements amounted to misrepresentations, Justice Cooke ruled. Since his purchase of the property in 2005, Mr de Marco had undertaken considerable work to deal with water ingress, much of it described as ‘band-aid’ repairs. An attempt to sell in 2011 failed when the then purchasers cancelled after obtaining an adverse building report. A building report obtained by Mr de Marco in 2011 also highlighted significant weather-tightness issues. Anderson and Carrasco cancelled their 2017 purchase after learning about the 2011 report.
Mr de Marco refused to repay the purchasers’ $120,000 deposit. They chose to sign an unconditional contract without any due diligence and were advised before signing to get their own building report, he said. It does not stand well for a person accused of misrepresentation to blame the other person for believing the misrepresentation, Justice Cooke said.
Evidence was given that Mr de Marco, by now in prison, subsequently sold Fortification Road in a private sale for $1.1 million with the sale agreement allowing Mr de Marco’s partner to continue living at the property paying a below market rental.
Anderson v. de Marco – High Court (11.11.20)
20.175