SON SUES MOTHER

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 1074, 11 September 1930, Page 1

SON SUES MOTHER

CLAIM FOR POSSESSION OF HOUSE TRUST OR CONTRACT? The right of a mother to continue living in a house on a Whangarei property, which had been conveyed on terms, which were subsequently released, by the husband to her son, was questioned by the son in a suit for possession of the dwelling, heard by Mr. Justice Herdman, in the Supreme Court today. 'J'HE action was brought by a Hikurangi butcher, John Alexander MacLeod, against his mother, Edith Agnes MacLeod, of Whangarel. The facts, which were admitted, showed that on June 16, 1925, Alexander MacLeod entered into a deed of conveyance with his son, the plaintiff, to whom he conveyed the property. A condition of the transfer was that the father and mother should be allowed to live rent-free in the house during their lives, and that the son should pay an annuity of £lO4 as rent. By ’ subsequent deeds on August 20, 1929, and April IQ, 1930, the father, who went to live with his son, released the son from the necessity of paying rent on the property, and eliminated his right to live in the house. OFFERED HOME The son had also offered his mother a home, but she had refused to leave the residence on the property involved in the case. Under the original deed the mother, after the death of Alexander MacLeod, was authorised to continue living rent-free on the property. Mr. Anderson, for the plaintiff, contended that the agreement between father and son was purely a contract for the former's benefit, and, he submitted, ir this was the case,’ the mother, not being a party, had no rights and could not enforce any. Counsel claimed that as the agreement was a contract, the father had the right to cauoel or vary the original deed in any way, as he had done by releasing his rights. Mr. Anderson further argued that as no trust was created in favour of the mother, she was not entitled to separate use of the premises during the joint lives of herself and her husband.. “CREATED TRUST" For the defendant, Mr. Rudd contended that there was authority to show- that a person, who was not a party to a deed, could take a benefit under it. He submitted further that the conveyance of the father created a trust «n favour of the mother, and that the document was a perfectly validly executed deed of trust. Counsel claimed that there was ample support for the argument that the mother had the right to live in the house separately. His Honour reserved his decisiou.