Weeks before Carl Hoffman’s death in 2024, former spouse Moyra shifted into his family trust-owned Rotorua home against his express wishes and remained, with a court order needed to evict her.
The two had separated thirty-two years previously. Moyra was paid $320,000 in 2006 on condition that she then surrendered all rights as beneficiary of Carl’s family trust; a trust he had established in 1981 at conclusion of an earlier relationship.
The trust subsequently purchased a family home on State Highway 30 at Rotorua where Carl lived with their two children: Kurt and Kane.
As trust settlor, Carl indicated to trustees that he wished to have the property sold on his death and the proceeds divided equally between his four children: Kurt and Kane, plus two children from an earlier relationship.
He also firmly told trustees that his former wife Moyra was to have no access to trust assets or the Rotorua home, saying ‘she has already had more than enough money from me.’
In the nearly two years since Carl’s death, Moyra and Kurt have continued living in the house, despite being asked to leave in readiness for a sale, paying no rent and in the company of ten cats, a dog, plus several sheep and pigs, trustees told the High Court.
The property is not being properly maintained, they claimed.
Vacant possession is necessary to achieve Carl’s wish that the property be sold and net proceeds divided amongst his children, trustees said.
Associate Judge Wild ruled Moyra and Kurt had no legal rights to remain in possession. They were given three weeks to leave.
Trustees had offered special assistance for Kurt, Judge Wild said, offering to assist with any bond needed for a new rental and assistance in re-homing his animals. Kurt was described as having ongoing mental health issues.
Neither Moyra nor Kurt defended the eviction application.
Ross v. Hoffman – High Court (3.08.26)
26.215