By Hannah Bartlett, Open Justice reporter of 
Terina O'Connell says she had not consented to the mortgagee sale but ASB went ahead with it anyway. Photo: Hannah Bartlett / NZME
A couple who bought a Pāpāmoa Beach house needed a High Court order to remove the previous owner, after she refused to leave the property.
New owners Benjamin and Chelsea Brown bought the two-bedroom home at a mortgagee sale this year, with settlement taking place on 21 May.
Previous owner Terina O'Connell said she had been trying to "negotiate a solution with ASB for two years" and had not consented to the sale of her home.
As a result, she refused to move out and even went as far as reaching out to people on social media, asking them to come to her home and support her before settlement day.
The new owners sought a trespass order on 22 May to remove O'Connell and her supporters, and when that didn't work, they took their case to the High Court.
'The bank does not own my property'
According to a recently released High Court decision, Justice Dani Gardiner held a telephone conference on 6 June, when O'Connell's position could be heard by all parties.
The court was also referred to a Facebook post she made, where she invited supporters to join her at the house.
There are two posts still on her Facebook page, in which she did a "call-out" for support, saying "all I know is that the supposed settlement is Tuesday, 20 May 2025 - tomorrow".
She said the purchasers had "made a deal with the devil" and that "the bank does not own my property, I have no business with you and I am not bound by any contract you made".
She posted that she "would appreciate some support at my home... tomorrow afternoon... tomorrow night and for the next couple of days".
While not discussed in the High Court judgment, there was also a livestreamed Facebook interview that O'Connell did with Counterspin Media, in which she explained her views on the "alleged debt" owed to the bank.
In it, she said she had paused her mortgage repayments, while the bank refused to provide her with documentation she had requested or answer questions she had.
Judge: Any issues between her and bank, not new owners
The judge summarised O'Connell's position as primarily taking issue with the mortgagee sale process conducted by ASB.
O'Connell told the court she'd tried to "negotiate a solution" for two years and had not consented to the mortgagee sale, and said ASB went ahead with the sale anyway.
She also said ASB's solicitor advised her of the settlement date, but said she was told the couple's lawyer would contact her about vacating.
O'Connell said that never happened and, the day after settlement, the new owner arrived at the property, followed by security guards and police, and she had been "harassed".
She rejected the couple's claim that her presence at the house, with others, had posed a risk of damage to the property, adding they were there to "support her through this stressful time", and that she would experience emotional and financial hardship, if forced to leave.
Justice Gardiner's decision said the Browns were the registered owners, and any issues that O'Connell had before the mortgagee sale were "between her and ASB".
"These issues do not affect the plaintiffs' legal ownership of the property," Justice Gardiner said.
The judge said, while it may have been unfortunate if O'Connell had been unaware the couple intended to take possession of the property immediately on settlement, that was the usual case.
She also accepted there was a risk of damage to the property by O'Connell or her supporters.
The High Court judgment also noted that, while O'Connell remained at the property, the couple were in breach of their insurance policy, as they couldn't change the locks or get an electrical warrant of fitness.
They were also unable to rent the property to service their mortgage, which placed them at risk of default.
The judge made an order requiring O'Connell and any other occupants to vacate the property by Monday, 9 June.
Are mortgagee sales on the rise?
Cotality New Zealand data showed a "minor lift" to 81 mortgagee sales in the second quarter of this year, up on the previous quarter, when there were 52.
This marked the highest number since the fourth quarter of 2023, when there were 101 mortgagee sales.
However, Cotality head of research Nick Goodall said the number was "still very low in a longer-term context, especially compared to the Global Financial Crisis".
"I think this illustrates a more stable financial lending environment over the last decade or so, as well as the willingness and ability of banks to work closely with borrowers who may be struggling, rather than resort to mortgagee sales, which doesn't really benefit either party."
OneRoof has 58 properties currently listed as "mortgagee sales" in New Zealand, with the total number of properties listed sitting at just over 38,000.
New Zealand Banking Association chief executive Roger Beaumont said banks were responsible lenders. They typically had dedicated teams to deal with those experiencing financial difficulty, and mortgagee sales were "rare and always a last resort".
"There are several options that banks may offer... depending on their particular circumstances. That may, for example, include temporarily moving to interest-only repayments."
Beaumont said, in the six months from July to December 2024, there were 1.4 million home loans across 1.1 million customers.
"As an indication of potential financial issues, of the total number of home loans in that period, 17,445 loans switched from principal and interest repayments to interest-only repayments."
- This story originally appeared in the Zealand Herald.
