It took a High Court order to remove intending purchasers Xing Meng and Huimin Guan from an Auckland property after they were allowed to move in before unsuccessfully seeking mortgage finance for a $1.78 million purchase
The High Court was told Wei Xu had known Ms Guan for over twenty years. In May 2018, he agreed to sell his property on Bayside Drive, Browns Bay, to Ms Guan and her husband for $1.78 million. There was no written agreement. The deal was conditional on the purchasers getting bank finance; meanwhile they were allowed to shift into the property. They agreed to pay rates and insurance pending final settlement and to hand over a twenty per cent deposit when their own property was sold. Five months elapsed before a reduced deposit of $200,000 was paid.
Three years on: Mr Meng and Ms Guan were still in occupation; had not been able to get mortgage finance because of Mr Meng’s tenuous job prospects as an airline pilot; had stopped paying rates and insurance; and were refusing to budge until their $200,000 deposit was repaid.
They said they were tenants and could not be removed by High Court order; the Tenancy Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction over tenancy disputes.
Associate judge Andrew ruled Mr Xu was entitled to possession. Ms Guan was given 28 days to leave. Mr Meng is currently in China. Judge Andrew said they were never tenants. There was never any tenancy agreement; only an agreement to purchase which came to an end when they failed to find finance. Any argument over disputed return of the $200,000 deposit is a separate issue to rights of possession claimed over Bayside Drive, he said.
Xu v. Meng – High Court (29.07.21)
21.130