The ties that bind a family bach built by a labour of love have been unravelled by a long-running fight which one family member says has caused “years of heartbreak”.

“It’s been absolute devastation. It’s a place where we used to love to go, as it was all about family,” she said of the shared haven in the sometimes serene but often squally corner of the Marlborough Sounds.

The 49ha property at Oyster Bay, in a part of the Sounds known as Croisilles Harbour was developed by Morris and Rosalie Parkins, together with their three sons, Reece, Steve and Grant.

Rosalie died in 1999, sadly not long after the bach was finished, and Morris in 2010, after which the three brothers inherited an equal share in the property.

It had become something their father never would have wanted, Steve told Open Justice. The stress has been such that he’s lost teeth over it – literally ground them away.

“I’ve completely buggered them,” he said of the dentist’s reasons they had to be removed.

At the heart of the dispute was Grant’s ambition for a greater interest in the property. He claimed to have contributed more than his brothers to its development. He was not challenging the will, but wanted recognition he was entitled to a larger share of the value of improvements over the years.

A bid to have the District Court recognise his claim failed, and now an appeal to the High Court has also failed.

Grant said while the rift with his brothers was now irreparable, he planned to continue the fight.

“I don’t want to say much more but yes, it’s been very difficult – there’s no going back,” he told Open Justice.

Morris Parkins was 46 years old when he bought the property in 1990. It was mostly bare land in a part of the Sounds that was a boat ride from Nelson, or a long drive over twisty, steep gravel roads which in parts plunged straight down to the sea.

Morris, Rosalie and their three sons always referred to the property as “the family bach”, where Morris spent most of his spare time. He was a builder, regarded by all, including his sons, as a man of few words. He was extremely resourceful and a very hard and committed worker, Justice Gendall said in last month’s High Court decision.

“It is clear from the evidence that Morris was very determined to develop his family bach property which he loved, and in doing so to employ the many and varied skills he had.”

He worked tirelessly for years to develop the property and the two houses eventually on it, so it was kept for and used by all the family. From 1990 he cleared the land, built fences and facilities for stock plus a large shed before preparing a site for the first house. Morris and his sons worked full time, therefore work on the property was a project for weekends. It took six years to build the house.

Grant was an engineer, Reece a builder, and Steve a plumber. Aside from the practical skills they contributed to developing the property, they also revelled in the fishing and hunting opportunities the bay offered.

In 2003 Morris, who was by then retired, relocated an old hospital building to the property to be used as a second house. In 2008 his health declined, and he went into care. Reece took over administering his father’s affairs. He, Grant and Steve, divided the costs three ways of running the property, including rates, insurance, private roading levies, and mooring fees.

Morris died in 2010, not having been back to the Sounds since he went into care. While Grant acknowledged all had equal share in the estate, he claimed that because he and their father developed the property together in the earlier years he was therefore entitled to half the value of improvements over time.

“Because of his contributions and reasonable expectations, he maintains an institutional constructive trust arose relating to the property that he asks the court to recognise,” Justice Gendall said.

An example of a constructive trust might be where a person was defined by law as being a property’s nominal owner, for the benefit of others.

Steve and Reece acknowledged Grant had put in more work than they had early on, but later on their contributions exceeded his. They too had used their trade expertise, their own equipment and gear, and their access to materials in the property’s later development. They also disputed Grant’s claim he had made direct financial contributions to the property’s development.

Justice Gendall said that in order to give rise to a constructive trust a claimant needed to establish more than just contributions to the asset in question.

“The property was regarded by all as the ‘family bach’. It was ‘Morris’ bach’ – his passion, and something he worked on in most of his free moments.

“It was passed down by Morris in his will (unchanged for 30 years when he died), to his three boys in equal shares for continuing use by them and the next generation – his respective grandchildren.”

Justice Gendall said the conclusion reached in the District Court to dismiss Grant’s claim in its entirety was a proper one. The subsequent appeal in the High Court failed for a number of reasons.

The family said the heartbreak was such that some of them, including Grant, hadn’t visited in years.

They said it had left a “nasty taste” and all they wanted was to remember their Mum and Dad being there.

“We know what our father’s wishes were, and we’re fighting for that,” Steve said.

Source: Read Full Article