One of the ongoing issues is that a local farmer believes he has an unconditional Sale and Purchase Agreement to purchase land and buildings that are owned by two community organisation's.
In 2018 a Sales and Purchase agreement was formed between;
Tutamoe Hall Ass Inc and Property Applications NZ Limited for the purchase of the Tutamoe Hall, and,
Tutamoe Community Trust and Property Applications NZ Limited for the purchase of the Tutamoe School
Only one Sale and Purchase agreement has been forthcoming with the trustees refusing to provide documentation to a trustee requested via lawyers.
It was the signing of this Sale and Purchase agreement that had one of the Trustees on both organisation's, Mr Schepen's placed caveats on both properties to stop any such sale.
Mr Rutherford continues to state that he has an unconditional Sales and Purchase Agreement, and that it is “MY schoolhouse”.
So what is the issue? Mr Rutherford is using a document that is not an enforceable contract. I can hear some of you already going, well how do you come to that conclusion?! So, I will explain and provide evidence and case law that backs these facts up!
Mr Schepen's, a Trustees since the formation of the Tutamoe Community Trust did not take part in the meeting deciding on the sale. This was because “K Hayes forgot to ring John Schepen's”. This is noted in the minutes for the meeting held on 2nd June 2018.
All, yes, ALL Trustees must sign a contract to make it enforceable. This is proven multiple times in New Zealand Case Law, and I present just one case to which future High Court action will be referred to.
In this judgment, it refers to that of Hammond J in Rodney Aero Club Inc v Moore  2 NZLR 192. Here his Honour had to consider the position where one of the trustees had not signed a license agreement upon which the claim was based. Mr Quin submitted that having regard to the fact that Mr Henry, one of the registered proprietors and a trustee, had not signed the agreement it was not possible, therefore, to conclude that a contract had been formed. The evidence
“indicates to me a clear understanding that the normal position in relation to a sale of rural land would apply, namely, that each registered proprietor would sign the sale and purchase contract and that until that stage had been reached no enforceable contract had been entered into.”
Based alone on this one judgement (and believe me there are many more that uphold this ruling) the Sale and Purchase agreement Mr Rutherford uses is in fact invalid and not worth the paper it is printed on.
Mr Rutherford holds caveats himself over the properties in question. Why, because he believes that his Sales and Purchase agreement is valid. He publishes on social media sites that he ‘owns’ the school/house and that people are “squatting in his home”, even publishing the address of the property. He has done this over 21 times (that we are aware of) in the hope of what? Intimidating people to step aside and allow an illegal sale to go through? To have people think that the community group and it’s members who are standing up and fighting for what is legally right are 'insane', 'crazy', 'nutters' or as his partner puts it, ‘unemployed bums’ or nobodies because they are stay at home mothers?
Under 228 of the Crimes Act 1961 it is an offense to take or use a document without claim of right with the intent to obtain property, services, pecuniary advantage, or valuable consideration.
We know first-hand that Mr Rutherford has told local Police that he ‘owns’ the Schoolhouse. This was to try and have a trespass notice issued to him revoked.
In a previous blog I mentioned that the Tutamoe Community Collective is heading to the High Court. This is one of the issues that is being asked to be resolved because people within the community are not acting in good faith and are using documents that are, according to current laws, not enforceable as no contract has been entered into.
What will we be asked of the High Court?
The Sale and Purchase agreement be void.
Caveat of Mr Rutherford's be removed.
Costs against all parties involved.