Efstratiou v Glantschnig

Last updated

Efstratiou v Glantschnig
Coat of arms of New Zealand.svg
Court Court of Appeal of New Zealand
Full case nameEfstratiou, Glantschnig, and Petrovic v. Glantschnig
Decided1972
Citation[1972] NZLR 594
Keywords
indefeasible title, fraud

Efstratiou v Glantschnig (1972) is an often cited New Zealand case to the limits of indefeasibility of title to land ownership, where in this case, (unlike in Frazer v Walker and Boyd v Mayor of Wellington ) the purchaser of the land was aware of the title fraud at the time of the purchase of the property. [1]

Contents

Background

Mr H and Mrs Christine Glantschnig had a turbulent relationship.

Originally married in Austria in 1955, they later moved to New Zealand in 1956. In that same year they purchased their matrimonial house at 62 Wallace Street, Wellington for the sum of $3,900, with the wife paying half the deposit of $1,000.

However, despite her paying half the deposit, only the husband was listed on the property title as the registered owner. However, this still gave her an equitable ownership to the property.

In 1958 the couple briefly separated, and the husband agreed to a settlement agreement in which he acknowledged he owed his wife half the deposit for the house. The couple soon reconciled.

In 1968 the wife lent the husband $1,000 for a trip back to Austria for what has been described as an indefinite stay. In his absence, the wife took in a boarder, only referred to as "K".

When the husband finally returned to his wife unexpectedly on 20 April, he discovered that his wife and the boarder "K" were living together in a marriage-like relationship.

In the ensuing argument, the wife walked out of the house, taking their two children with her. The following day, 21 April, the wife obtained, and had served on her husband, an interim injunction prohibiting him from returning to the house.

Not happy with these developments, on the following day 22 April, the husband showed the injunction to a Mr Petrovic, a real estate agent, and instructed him to sell the house, and the agent arranged a sale of the house for $5,000, substantially below its valuation of $8,000, the same day, with the settlement date being only three days later on 25 April.

Even then, the purchaser settled the sale the following day, on 23 April, which was legally two days early than required, and the title transfer was done first thing the following day at 9.30am on 24 April.

Mrs Glantschnig was then forced to file a motion for the purchase to be set aside, and also added her ex-husband and the real estate agent Mr Petrovic, who was aware of the scheme to defraud, to the proceedings.

The purchaser, Mr Efstratiou claimed he had indefeasible title.

Held

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand ruled that due to amongst other things, the great speed of the sale (less than 24 hours after listing), that it was sold for only 63% of the market price, and the transaction was stamped and registered the very day after settlement, that the purchaser was aware of the wife's equitable interest in the property (albeit unregistered) and that the sale was registered through fraud, that accordingly, the purchaser did not have indefeasible title and the sale was set aside. However the court vacated the wife's previous award of damages for $3,000 and awarded her legal costs of only $300.

Related Research Articles

In law, conveyancing is the transfer of legal title of real property from one person to another, or the granting of an encumbrance such as a mortgage or a lien. A typical conveyancing transaction has two major phases: the exchange of contracts and completion.

Torrens title is a land registration and land transfer system, in which a state creates and maintains a register of land holdings, which serves as the conclusive evidence of title of the person recorded on the register as the proprietor (owner), and of all other interests recorded on the register.

<i>Lee v Lees Air Farming Ltd</i>

Lee v Lee's Air Farming Ltd [1960] UKPC 33 is a company law case from New Zealand, also important for UK company law and Indian Companies Act 2013, concerning the corporate veil and separate legal personality. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council reasserted that a company is a separate legal entity, so that a director could still be under a contract of employment with the company he solely owned.

<i>Bisset v Wilkinson</i> 1927 New Zealand contract law case

Bisset v Wilkinson [1927] AC 177 is a leading contract law case from New Zealand on the issue of misrepresentation. The case establishes that a mere misstatement of opinion given fairly cannot amount to a misrepresentation.

<i>Williams & Glyns Bank v Boland</i>

Williams & Glyn's Bank v Boland [1980] is a House of Lords judgment in English land and trusts law on an occupier's potentially overriding interests in a home.

<i>Breskvar v Wall</i> Judgement of the High Court of Australia

Breskvar v Wall, was an Australian court case, decided in the High Court on 13 December 1971. The case was an influential decision in property law, specifically the effect of obtaining title by registration under the Torrens title system, the application of the fraud exception to the principle of indefeasibility and whether Frazer v Walker  should be followed in Australia. The High Court followed Frazer v Walker in upholding that a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the fraud obtained an effective title even though the person they purchased from was registered by fraud against the original owner.

<i>Boyd v Mayor of Wellington</i> Case law in New Zealand on the concept of indefeasibility of title

Boyd v. Mayor of Wellington [1924] NZLR 1174 is a leading case law in New Zealand on the concept of indefeasibility of title.

<i>Dundee Farm Ltd v Bambury Holdings Ltd</i>

Dundee Farm Ltd. v. Bambury Holdings Ltd. (1978) is a case involving the sale of a farm in Bombay, South Auckland and is notable as it is often cited in New Zealand on issues of mistake, and reinforces the English case of Joscelyne v Nissen [1970] 2 QB 86 into NZ case law.

<i>Frazer v Walker</i> 1966 Judicial Committee of the Privy Council case

Frazer v Walker [1967] 1 AC 569 is a landmark New Zealand court case that went to the Privy Council on appeal. The case upheld the concept that an owner of interest in land which was originally obtained from the rightful owner through fraud, still obtains an indefeasible interest in that title if they were unaware of the fraud.

<i>Chhokar v Chhokar</i>

Chhokar v Chhokar [1984] FLR 313 is an English land law case concerning constructive trusts law and widening the natural meaning of "actual occupation". The facts of the case showed an intention to do a woman out of her occupational interest in a matrimonial home, as the new co-owner buying his share from the husband knew of her situation from the outset and wished to resell the property. The court confirmed in these exact circumstances her interest was overriding at the time when she was in hospital and it was a constructive trust.

<i>Hart v OConnor</i>

Hart v O'Connor [1985] UKPC 1 is an important case in New Zealand, also relevant for English contract law, regarding mental capacity to enter into contract as well as regarding unconscionable bargains, which made it as far as the Privy Council.

<i>Conlon v Ozolins</i>

Conlon v Ozolins (1984) NZLR 489 is an important New Zealand case involving the legal issues of non est factum and mutual mistake.

<i>Nichols v Jessup</i>

Nichols v Jessup [1986] 1 NZLR 226, is a New Zealand case regarding unconscionable bargains, and it set the threshold for an unconscionable bargain is that the stronger party did not have to have actual knowledge of the other party having a disability, but merely that the stronger party should have had suspicions that the other party had a disability.

<i>Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2)</i>

Finch Motors Ltd v Quin [1980] 2 NZLR 519 is an important case regarding "merchantable quality" under the Sale of Goods Act 1908 and the Consumer Guarantees Act (1993).

<i>Powierza v Daley</i>

Powierza v Daley [1985] 1 NZLR 558 is an important New Zealand case involving where an inquiry about an offer, is just that, or whether instead it is a counteroffer. The legal distinction between the two is important, as an "inquiry" still leaves the original offer live, whereas a "counteroffer" cancels the previous offer.

<i>Contractors Bonding v Snee</i>

Contractors Bonding v Snee [1992] 2 NZLR 157 is a leading New Zealand case regarding undue influence.

<i>Field v Fitton</i>

Field v Fitton [1988] 1 NZLR 482 is a cited New Zealand case regarding privity of contract.

<i>Slater Wilmhurst Ltd v Crown Group Custodian Ltd</i>

Slater Wilmhurst Ltd v Crown Group Custodian Ltd [1991] 1 NZLR 344 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding common mistake.

<i>Bowkett v Action Finance Ltd</i>

Bowkett v Action Finance Ltd [1992] 1 NZLR 449 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding unconscionable bargains.

<i>Bunny Industries v FSW Enterprises</i>

Bunny Industries v FSW Enterprises is a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland.

References

  1. ↑ Gerbic, Philippa; Lawrence, Martin (2003). Understanding Commercial Law (5th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN   0-408-71714-9.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.