By Troels Sommerville of 
The tenant claimed to have spent more on the house than it was worth. Photo: 123RF
A man who lived rent-free in a million-dollar Auckland house for more than 30 years has been told to get out after claiming he should be paid to take ownership of the house.
John Solomon Smith has been ordered to vacate a house in Conifer Grove.
He has lived there since 1992, when a Japanese couple bought it for $250,000 from a company he owned, according to a recent decision from the High Court at Auckland.
Hisako Washikita and her husband returned to Japan at the time, leaving Smith and his family living in the house rent-free, but paying for the upkeep.
After only visiting three times - in 1993, 1994 and 2004 - the Washikitas decided to sell the house, and in February 2020 sent a letter asking Smith to vacate the house by the end of the year.
That letter kick-started a back and forth, during which Smith offered to buy the house "subject to conditions", the court decision said.
Firstly, when presented with a 2020 valuation of $1.06 million, Smith claimed the house was in poor condition.
Then in June 2021 - six months after he was expected to be out of the house - Smith's lawyers sent the Washikitas a sale and purchase agreement claiming Smith had spent $1,091,122.16 on the property.
The invoices - covering materials supplied, repairs and maintenance, rates, insurance and water rates - were for work carried out by companies owned by Smith.
Associate Judge Owen Paulsen noted in his judgment the expenses claim meant that Smith was expecting the Washikitas to pay Smith more than $31,000 to take ownership of the house.
Smith also claimed he had an agreement the Washikitas would sell the house back to him at "no profit" - a term that was never elaborated upon.
But Associate Judge Paulsen rejected the claims, which he said had only been brought after Smith was given a chance to purchase the property.
A computer forensic specialist examined the invoices and noted they were created using a Microsoft Excel format which was only introduced in 2007.
They were also modified in either January or April 2021, the expert concluded.
Judge Paulsen said there was also no evidence the invoices had ever been sent to the homeowners over the course of the 30-year tenancy.
"Nowhere in his affidavit does Smith assert that he carried out work on the property in the expectation that he would receive an interest in it," Paulsen wrote in his decision.
"In correspondence with Washikita he repeatedly acknowledged the property belonged to Washikita and he was looking after it for him."
Paulsen concluded Smith had to vacate the property, even before his counterclaims were heard, as they were "without merit and have no realistic prospect of success".
He also ruled the Washikitas could seek reimbursements for costs.
- This article was originally published on Stuff.
