The Mahana Ridge Subdivision in the Moutere Hills, Tasman District. The Development has been touted as “an exclusive country estate where luxury and rural living meet”.
The Mahana Ridge Subdivision in the Moutere Hills, Tasman District. The Development has been touted as “an exclusive country estate where luxury and rural living meet”.
A couple refused to pay their share of maintenance costs on a property they owned in a luxury lifestyle subdivision because the group in charge hadn’t upheld its end of the bargain, they claimed.
The grass wasn’t mowed, and weeds were not sprayed, or at least “only twice in the last three and a half years”, Craig Thomas and Gemma Gamble alleged.
But now the Nelson District Court has ordered them to pay the $5600 in levies owed over three years to the Mahana Ridge Residents’ Association.
They also have to pay interest at 24.7% and indemnity costs, which, all up, are now likely to be higher than the unpaid levies themselves, Judge Stephen Harrop said at a hearing this week.
The association is an incorporated society formed in 2018 and plays a key role in preserving owners’ interests and the environmental features of the Mahana Ridge Development, touted as “an exclusive country estate where luxury and rural living meet”.
The 32-section subdivision in “the rolling green hills of the Moutere” in the Tasman District is made up of 32 sections ranging in size from 9600sq m to 2.5ha.
A judge told a couple reluctant to pay maintenance levies on their property in a subdivision that it was little different to refusing to pay rates because the potholes weren't fixed on the road outside. Photo / 123RF
The costs of maintaining communal facilities and important landscape features such as streams, native bush and grassed areas between properties were shared among property owners through levies they paid.
The association’s affairs were managed by a board, which had the power to enforce compliance with rules, according to its trust deed on the NZ Companies Office site.
A spokesperson for the association said in a statement to NZME that the couple bought the property knowing that an annual levy was payable.
They said the association “has been communicating with Mr Thomas and Ms Gamble in a neighbourly way, trying to arrange payment of the levies for a year and a half”.
Court proceedings were very much a last resort for the association, which owed a responsibility to all its members to ensure that levies were paid, they said.
Judge Harrop told Thomas and Gamble that their refusal to pay was no different from someone not paying council rates because the potholes outside their front door had not been fixed.
“It’s no reason not to pay rates, but you can complain in other ways.
“None of this prevents you from raising a complaint about the obligations of the association.”
The association’s lawyer, Niall Thrupp, said efforts had been made to resolve the dispute, including setting out a reduced sum that it thought was palatable.
Thomas and Gamble, who represented themselves in court, had earlier offered to repay the debt at $100 per week, but Thrupp said that wasn’t acceptable to his client, who felt proceedings were the only option left because of “the conduct of the defendants”.
Gamble said they knew about the levy when they bought the site but she claimed they were only made aware of the amount outstanding when she got a text to say they were in arrears.
Thomas told Judge Harrop he understood the levy existed to care for the land, according to the prospectus.
He claimed sections were being mowed “around the place” but not on their side of the road.
Thomas said the agreement included that the property would be looked after when they went away but he was concerned it would end up just “gorse and broom”.
Thrupp said reasonable attempts had been made to convey the work that had been done and what the levies covered.
Judge Harrop said there was no defence to the claim and the couple had not filed any documents to support their argument.
He noted that the couple did not dispute the debt, but their concern was around allegations that the association had not carried out its obligations.
The judgment included an option for indemnity costs to be claimed, but they “needed to be reasonable”.
Judge Harrop said without such an order the expenses incurred by the residents’ association in trying to recoup the debt would be spread among the other resident members.
He said even though judgment had been entered that did not mean talks between the parties should end.
Judge Harrop urged the couple to consider their position because “the levies would keep coming”.
The association hoped to work out an arrangement for the couple to meet their levies payment obligations.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
