Tit-for-tat rulings leave brothers owing each other thousands over late mother's home

After their mother died, one brother purchased the family home from her estate and rented it to the other.

For 17 years, neither treated the arrangement with any formality, allowing the home’s condition to deteriorate, repairs to go undone and the rent to go unpaid.

The brothers, who have name suppression, ended up in the Tenancy Tribunal in October 2025, where the tenant brother was ordered to pay $19,548.57 in rent arrears and his tenancy was terminated.

That was not the end of their dispute.

A year later, the brothers returned to the tribunal, where the tenant sought exemplary damages for failures to maintain the premises and comply with Healthy Homes requirements, as well as reimbursement of fixed water charges paid during the tenancy.

The tribunal this time sided with the tenant, ordering his brother to pay him $7000 in exemplary damages, $5000 in compensation for distress and loss of amenity, and $4966.74 to reimburse fixed water charges.

Tribunal adjudicator Haamid Ben Fayed said in the recently released decision he was satisfied there were significant failures to maintain the premises and comply with applicable Healthy Homes requirements.

“The respondent’s evidence was essentially that, when his brother asked him to attend to something, he would come to the property and deal with it.

“Neither party appears to have treated the arrangement with the formality ordinarily expected of a residential tenancy.”

The landlord told the tribunal this was how matters had operated between him and his brother for many years.

“That provides context. It does not provide a defence,” Ben Fayed said.

The tenant paid rent of $400 a week for a lengthy period, substantially below market rates, the decision stated.

Despite that, Ben Fayed said the breaches were significant and persisted for a substantial period, affecting the tenant’s enjoyment of his home and including matters relevant to health, safety and habitability.

The decision did not describe the home’s issues.

He said there was insufficient evidence the applicant consistently notified the landlord of defects as they arose or gave him a reasonable opportunity to remedy them, which contributed to some of the issues continuing for longer than they otherwise might have.

Regarding the claim for reimbursement of fixed water charges, the respondent’s evidence was that the applicant paid the Watercare accounts directly.

Ben Fayed said responsibility for fixed water charges rested with the landlord, whose failure to meet that obligation resulted in the charges being passed on to the tenant.

The tenant also sought to revisit the earlier tribunal determinations concerning rent arrears and termination of the tenancy, but Ben Fayed declined.

The latest tribunal decision is unlikely to mark the end of the brothers’ legal battles.

There is a High Court proceeding concerning ownership of the property and the circumstances in which the respondent acquired it from their mother’s estate.

Brianna McIlraith is a Queenstown-based reporter for Open Justice covering courts in the lower South Island. She has been a journalist since 2018 and has had a strong interest in business and financial journalism.