Winding up estates of two brothers was left to drift, reaching the stage where Izak Matene as the five per cent owner of a Massey property in Auckland refused to allow estate beneficiaries any access to their inherited property while he lived there with his family. The High Court ordered a Property Law Act sale, with Izak given six weeks to shift out.
A 2014 family arrangement saw the Kopi Place property purchased collectively by several relatives: Izac taking a five per cent share; his father Joe taking a seventy per cent share; and Joe’s brother Isaac a twenty-five per cent share.
Part of the price was paid with a $296,000 bank loan, having all three liable as signatories. It is claimed Izak put in no cash.
At time of this purchase, Izak’s uncle Isaac had limited mental capacity, the result of a head injury twenty years previously. Isak’s father Joe was one of Isaac’s court-appointed property managers, authorised to handle his financial affairs.
Isaac died three months after Joe signed him into his purchase of a twenty-five per cent share of Kopi Place.
Isaac left no will. No steps were taken to deal with his twenty-five per cent share.
Nearly ten years after Isaac’s death, son Daniel became administrator of his late father’s estate and started asking questions. Initially, family were unaware that Isaac was part-owner of Kopi Place.
The High Court was told Daniel was refused access to Kopi Place and physically threatened when he questioned ownership rights.
By this time, Izak’s father Joe (who held a seventy per cent share of Kopi Place) had died.
He also left no will. Again, no steps were taken to deal with his estate.
When ownership issues were raised eventually in the High Court, Izak and his family were living at Kopi Place, having no interest in sorting out ownership rights to ninety-five per cent of the property Izak did not own. This ninety-five per cent share is expected to pass under default rules in the Administration Act to descendants of his father Joe and his uncle Isaac.
Izak himself is a beneficiary under his late father’s intestacy, together with his two sisters.
With Izak refusing access for co-owners, Justice MacGillivray ordered a Property Law Act forced sale of Kopi Place.
Net proceeds of sale are to be held by a law firm while Administration Act inheritance rights are identified.
Izak was ordered to pay an occupation rent for his use of Kopi Place since 2014, with a calculation of market rents over this period, less an allowance for Izak’s payment of rates and mortgage interest.
In addition to receiving five per cent of the net proceeds from Kopi Place as part-owner, Izak will receive an Administration Act inheritance out of the seventy per cent share payable to his late father’s estate.
Matene v. Estate of Joe Matene – High Court (10.10.25)
25.217