She ran a string of racehorses and managed the Kumara town dump. Now long-time West Coast identity Eileen Topliss claimed she was harassed and bullied into selling a 75 hectare block of pasture and scrub to relative Chris Meates and wife Donna. Not so, ruled the High Court ordering the sale go ahead. She manufactured evidence seeking to escape the sale after immediate family felt she could do better than selling to the Meates at $400,000, Justice Osborne decided.
Aged in her early eighties and widowed for nearly thirty years, Mrs Topliss had plans to separate off the 75 hectare block adjoining her home in Fifth Street, freeing up cash on sale. In the close-knit Kumara community, her intentions soon became common knowledge. Subdivision plans were prepared and ‘for sale’ signs went up. An oral offer was made at her indicative price of $500,000 but interest waned when she tried to renegotiate at a higher price.
The High Court was told her nephew Chris Meates subsequently expressed interest. After getting a valuers’ report indicating a market value of $415,000 the Meates offered to buy at $400,000. Eileen was content to sell to them at that price, they said. No immediate progress was made. There were delays in getting subdivision plans approved by Westland Council, Eileen claimed. Seven months later in late 2017, Donna Meates met with Eileen. Each subsequently disputed what transpired during a meeting at Eileen’s home. Donna said the purpose of the meeting was to make some progress on firming up the earlier oral agreement. Eileen signed a short note confirming details of the sale and was given $10,000 cash as a deposit. Donna said that it was an amicable meeting and that both agreed putting the deal in writing protected everyone. Eileen said that Donna stood over her in a threatening manner, forcing her to sign. Eileen said she refused the cash, but Donna left it behind when leaving. It was not banked for some months.
Evidence was given that Eileen subsequently baulked at carrying through any sale after her brother and her two sons learnt of the 2017 written agreement with the Meates. She claimed to have signed under duress and that the Meates had taken advantage of her advanced age to drive an unconscionable bargain.
Justice Osborne said that when committing to sell to the Meates she was her ‘own woman’ and knew what she was doing. Her evidence denying there was any sale showed a tendency to invent explanations which were either not correct or took liberties with the truth, he said.
The piece of paper she signed in 2017 was sufficient to identify the parties, the price and the land to be sold. It was an enforceable contract.
Meates v. Topliss – High Court (11.10.21)
21.169