A MAN who lived rent free in a million-dollar home for 30 years has been booted out by his landlords after an ownership gripe.
John Solomon Smith has lived at the home in Auckland, New Zealand, since 1992 and brought claims before court that he was entitled ownership over the property.
3
3
During his 30 year tenancy, the man claimed he spent about £621,500 on the property, which is more than the market value of the home.
According to documents from the Auckland High Court, the home is owned by a Japanese family, the Washikitas, who bought it for about £140,000.
The Washikitas returned to Japan after the purchase, leaving Smith and his family to live in the house rent-free.
However, it was agreed Smith would pay for the upkeep.
After a few visits between 1993 and 2004, the Washikitas decided to sell the home.
In February 2020, the property was valued at £603,797.
Subsequently, the Washikitas sent a letter asking Smith to vacate the house by the end of the year.
Smith declined and instead offered to buy the house “subject to conditions,” court documents revealed.
Most read in Money
Almost 18 months later, Smith’s lawyers sent the Washikitas a sale and purchase agreement.
Smith claimed he spent about £621,500 on the property, which meant he had already paid for it.
The invoice included materials, maintenance, insurance and water rates.
He also claimed the Wakashitas owed him about £17,600 on top of the sale.
Auckland High Court Judge Owen Paulsen rejected the claims.
A computer forensic specialist noted the invoices were created after 2007.
They were also modified 2021, according to court documents.
Judge Paulsen said there was no evidence the invoices had ever been sent to the homeowners during the 30 year tenancy.
He said: “Nowhere in his affidavit does Mr Smith assert that he carried out work on the property in the expectation that he would receive an interest in it.
“In correspondence with Mr Washikita he repeatedly acknowledged the property belonged to Mr Washikita and he was looking after it for him.”
Smith was ordered to vacate the property.
It was also ruled the Washikitas could seek reimbursements for costs.
3
