A man who lived in his parents’ home after their deaths, on the understanding he paid the bills and maintained it, has been evicted for failing to keep his side of the bargain. 

The man’s situation is outlined in a recent Tenancy Tribunal decision, following an application from the Public Trust for possession of the house, claiming the man had become a squatter. 

The Public Trust are trustees of the parents’ estate, including the property. In April the Public Trust ordered the man to leave, but he remained living at the property in May. 

Right of occupancy 

When the man’s father and stepmother died he was gifted “a right of occupancy” - it did not mean he owned the property but allowed him to live there providing he paid the rates and insurance and kept the house in a similar condition to what it was beforehand. 

However, the Public Trust said as the man, who has name suppression, had validated his right to live there as he didn’t paid rates, insure the property or maintain it. 

The tribunal agreed, noting there was more than $15,000 in unpaid rates and insurance premiums. 

“As the estates have no capital or income except the property, the Public Trust (a Crown entity) has had to make payment of the insurance on the property out of public funds, and the estates have incurred a debt of some $12,000 for insurance premiums. There is also approximately $5000 owed in rates.” 

The decision noted the man had made rate payments “from time to time” but they remained in significant arrears. 

For the man to be declared a squatter, the tribunal said the property had to be residential, the applicant must be entitled to possess the property and the respondent must have no legal right to be living there. 

If these three elements were established, the tribunal had no choice but to grant possession to the Public Trust. 

“As the respondent has failed to observe the duties to pay the rates and insurances, the Public Trust are entitled to possession, he has no legal right to occupy the premises,” the decision said. 

Finally, the tribunal suppressed the names of the man and his parents, along with the address of the property, saying the case was “essentially a private family matter”. 

But it said there was public interest in knowing and understanding the law and how it related to tenants with life interests in estates administered by the Public Trust. 

Public Trust responds 

A Public Trust spokesperson Georgie Hills said in a statement it respected the tribunal’s decision to limit the release of personal information relating to the case. It confirmed the property was now vacant. 

“These types of cases are extremely rare. We always set out to work with the people involved to try and reach a resolution. Taking legal action is the last resort,” Hills said. 

“A ‘right of residency’ is a common provision in a will which allows someone to remain living in the family home. While it doesn’t transfer the ownership of the property, it gives the occupant the right to use it subject to certain conditions being met. The conditions are set by the person who made the will, and it is the executor’s duty to ensure they are carried out.” 

Hills said it was also important to keep in mind that there’s often more than one beneficiary provided for in most estates – not all of whom will live in the family home. 

Catherine Hutton is an Open Justice reporter, based in Wellington. She has worked as a journalist for 20 years, including at the Waikato Times and RNZ. Most recently she was working as a media adviser at the Ministry of Justice.