What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904693 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4904693?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904693?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10648688-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4904693 about?

The tribunal order states: [The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address

How much money was awarded in case 4904693?

Verified claim lines are listed on this page.

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4904693?

The dispute type was not classified.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4904693?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10648688-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4904693 — Tenancy dispute

Order

[The landlord/s] is granted possession of the premises at [Tenancy address suppressed] immediately.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The applicant attended the hearing. Mr Mihell was called twice at the commencement of the hearing on the number he provided to Tenancy Services as his contact number for the hearing. Both calls went to voicemail.
I am satisfied that Mr Mihell had received notice of the hearing and claim. The Tribunal is able to continue to hear a matter if a party does not attend the hearing.
The applicant has applied for possession of the premises following purchase of the property which was sold at a mortgagee sale.
Mr Mihell’s mother had owned the property. Sadly she passed away in 2021. Mr Mihell has been living at the property. The applicant purchased the property after the bank who held a mortgage over the property decided to sell it. The applicant’s offer to purchase was accepted by the bank and settlement occurred on 21 June 2024. The applicant has had discussions with Mr Mihell about him moving out the property, however Mr Mihell has remained living at the property after the sale.
Section 65 RTA provides that: (1) Where on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant.”
Section 65(3) RTA confirms that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 65(1) even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

For the applicant to be successful in his application he needs to prove he is entitled to possession of the premises. The landlord has provided a n umber of documents in support of his application: •The current record of title to the premises which shows the premises were transferred to the applicant and his wife; •An emap update of sale of property, which records “Transfer in exercise of power of sale in Mortgage [.....] to {the applicant] and [the applicant’s wife] – 21.6.2024 at 10.30am; •An annual rates assessment for the premises in the name of the applicant and his wife; •An emails from the bank’s solicitor confirming the purchase funds had been received and the settlement of the property finalised.
The legal concept of “indefeasibility of title” applies to the land transfer system in New Zealand. The principle recognises and protects, with limited exceptions 1 , the concept that once you own land and your title it registered, it cannot be set aside or challenged by competing claims from other parties that do not have a registered interest.
The applicant and his wife are the registered owners of the premises.
I have considered all of documents forwarded by Mr Mihell in defence of the applicant’s claim for possession. Mr Mihell has raised that his older brother was 1 Such as land fraudulently obtained the administrator of his mother’s estate and that he paid rent to him which he believed should have been paid towards the mortgage.
However after reviewing all of the evidence presented by both parties and in particular the record of title and taking into account the principal of indefeasibility of title, I find the applicant and his wife are the registered owners and have the right to possession of the property.
I find Mr Mihell is at the premises without the legal right of occupation. The applicant and his wife have not granted him authority to live or be there. Accordingly possession of the premises is granted to the landlord immediately.
The applicant has applied for name suppression. The applicant has been wholly successful with his claim and suppression of his name and identifying details is ordered.

Reasons

The hearing was conducted by telephone. The applicant attended the hearing. Mr Mihell was called twice at the commencement of the hearing on the number he provided to Tenancy Services as his contact number for the hearing. Both calls went to voicemail.

I am satisfied that Mr Mihell had received notice of the hearing and claim. The Tribunal is able to continue to hear a matter if a party does not attend the hearing.

The applicant has applied for possession of the premises following purchase of the property which was sold at a mortgagee sale.

Mr Mihell’s mother had owned the property. Sadly she passed away in 2021. Mr Mihell has been living at the property. The applicant purchased the property after the bank who held a mortgage over the property decided to sell it. The applicant’s offer to purchase was accepted by the bank and settlement occurred on 21 June 2024. The applicant has had discussions with Mr Mihell about him moving out the property, however Mr Mihell has remained living at the property after the sale.

Section 65 RTA provides that: (1) Where on the application of any person entitled to possession of any residential premises, the Tribunal is satisfied that any person is in possession of the premises as a squatter or trespasser, or otherwise than pursuant to any right of occupation granted to that person by any person having lawful authority to grant that right to that other person, the Tribunal shall make a possession order granting possession of the premises to the applicant.”

Section 65(3) RTA confirms that the Tribunal has jurisdiction under section 65(1) even though the premises are not subject to a tenancy agreement.

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

For the applicant to be successful in his application he needs to prove he is entitled to possession of the premises. The landlord has provided a n umber of documents in support of his application: •The current record of title to the premises which shows the premises were transferred to the applicant and his wife; •An emap update of sale of property, which records “Transfer in exercise of power of sale in Mortgage [.....] to {the applicant] and [the applicant’s wife] – 21.6.2024 at 10.30am; •An annual rates assessment for the premises in the name of the applicant and his wife; •An emails from the bank’s solicitor confirming the purchase funds had been received and the settlement of the property finalised.

The legal concept of “indefeasibility of title” applies to the land transfer system in New Zealand. The principle recognises and protects, with limited exceptions 1 , the concept that once you own land and your title it registered, it cannot be set aside or challenged by competing claims from other parties that do not have a registered interest.

The applicant and his wife are the registered owners of the premises.

I have considered all of documents forwarded by Mr Mihell in defence of the applicant’s claim for possession. Mr Mihell has raised that his older brother was 1 Such as land fraudulently obtained the administrator of his mother’s estate and that he paid rent to him which he believed should have been paid towards the mortgage.

However after reviewing all of the evidence presented by both parties and in particular the record of title and taking into account the principal of indefeasibility of title, I find the applicant and his wife are the registered owners and have the right to possession of the property.

I find Mr Mihell is at the premises without the legal right of occupation. The applicant and his wife have not granted him authority to live or be there. Accordingly possession of the premises is granted to the landlord immediately.

The applicant has applied for name suppression. The applicant has been wholly successful with his claim and suppression of his name and identifying details is ordered.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904693 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Tenancy Tribunal case 4904693 — Tenancy dispute

At a glance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions

Order

Reasons

Is the applicant entitled to possession?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Frequently asked questions