“GREEN HILL” PROPERTY

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 75, Issue 6442, 5 November 1947, Page 6

“GREEN HILL” PROPERTY

SUBJECT OF LITIGATION DECISION RESERVED IN SUPREME COURT ACTION Part of one of the best-known farm properties in the Waikato “Green Hill,” 2000 acres on the northern boundary of Te Awamutu borough, which had been farmed by the Taylor tamily for over 60 years and was famous for its high-quality livestock—was the subject of a family dispute heard by Mr Justice Christie in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, yesterday. Isabel Muriel Christie Yamdley, married woman, Te Awamutu (Mr A. L. Tompkins) asked the Court for an order for partition or sale of part of the original property in the estate of her late brother, Frank Taylor, who died intestate on July Ist, 1945. The defendants in the application were plaintiff’s two brothers, John O. Taylor and William J. Taylor (Mr W. J. King). All three were joint administrators of the estate, but could not agree. The late F. Taylor owned 128 acres, including the old homestead and farm buildings. Proceedings were taken under the Administration Act and not under the Property Law Act. Negotiations had continued without finality. Petitioner alleged her brothers had unconscionably delayed proceedings. She claimed that the estate was not now being administered advantageously. She had offered to take over as pait of a means of reaching agreement, and as her share, 43 acres adjoining the larger property owned by her son, leaving her two brothers (who, in addition to, being administrators with her, were also equally beneficiaries with her), 85 acres and the homestead. Recently the administrators had sold 15 acres to the Waipa Racing Club at £l2O an acre. The death duty value of the whole 143 acres and buildings was £11,060. Mr Tompkins claimed that Mrs Yarndley was entitled to retain her third interest and could, not be compelled to sell unless the whole area was sold.

Mr King denied there had been any undue delay. Unfortunately the three administrators could not agree. If the property was sold by auction as had been suggested, the bidding would be subject to review by the Land Sales Court, so that it was unlikely that the sale would bring to the beneficiaries an amount comparable with figures mentioned in earlier negotiations. It was desired that if any sale was ordered, only the beneficiaries could buy, as the property had a sentimental value to at least one of the beneficiaries.

Mr Tompkins said Mrs Yarndley wanted finality without undue delay. She alleged that most of the farm was suitable for subdivision, especially the half-mile frontage to the State highway; that butterfat production had fallen by about 25 per cent, from the season 1945-46 to 1946-47, and that the fences and pastures were deteriorating. Joint control was proving unworkable and sale by public auction was desirable.

Mr King quoted authorities, and submitted that if Mrs Yarndley had genuinely offered to sell her interest at £5850, and the Land Sales Court reduced that price, the lowered figure mu?t be accepted as the stabilised price.

The brothers were prepared to purchase at the price fixed by the Land Sales Court, said Mr King, but Mrs Yarndley was only prepared to sell her- third share at a price to be agreed upon. Later the petitioner wanted £5850 for her share. The brothers thought that figure too high. Mrs Yarndley was not prepared to purchase the share of the two defendants at double £5850. A suggestion was made by the brothers to have a valuation made by competent individual valuers, with an umpire and all three beneficiaries would abide by that. This apparently was not. acceptable to Mrs Yarndley. Mr King said the family solicitor, Mr P. H, Watts, had done everything possible to reach agreement, but it was abortive. The brothers were keen to purchase the whole estate intact, but there was the question of aggregation as concerning the Yarndleys, for Yarndley senior was known to have 196 acres and Yarndley junior a similar acreage. The Court was asked to direct a sale and confine the purchase to the immediate beneficiaries. Mr Tompkins questioned the power of the Court to order the sale of one beneficiaries’ share to other beneficiaries. Decision was reserved.