Welfare of a person — administration of property — Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 — welfare guardian — Re K (A Protected Person) (1992) 9 FRNZ 117 — Re Lane (1989) 5 FRNZ 303. For 11 years there had been ongoing conflict among 7 adult children in relation to the welfare of their parent and the management of their property. It had been determined previously that the parent lacked capacity and that remained unchanged. In these proceedings, there were five applications before the Court. 1. Renewal of an order appointing one of the children as Welfare Guardian. 2. An application for removal of the current Welfare Guardian. 3. An application for renewal of an order appointing the Public Trustee Property Manager. 4. An application for a non-family member to be appointed as Welfare Guardian. 5. An application by two siblings to be appointed as Property Managers. In relation to the first issue, the Court found that the sibling currently acting as Welfare Guardian should be renewed as there was no evidence to support any claim that they had not acted in the welfare and best interests of the parent. Therefore, the application to have the current Welfare Guardian removed was dismissed and the order was renewed. Noting that many of the siblings had expressed criticisms of the Public Trust in relation to inconsistencies in their approach and that negotiations to sell the property had not progressed, the Court noted that some delays had occurred. However, this could partially be attributed to the complex family dynamics. Further delay arose because the siblings would not respond to inquiries made by the Public Trust. In relation to the issue of appointing two siblings as property managers, the Court noted that a rift amongst family members had existed for a number of years and that given the views of the parties the Court was concerned that the appointment would be perceived as being biased. The Court therefore concluded that an independent and neutral property manager should be appointed. The Public Trust was reappointed as property manager for a further period of three years. The Court also considered what should happen regarding disposition of the family home. One of the siblings had been living in the home for many years with no or little financial contribution, having stopped working to look after the parent. The Court found that in the circumstances, however, no clear evidence was found to indicate they were to have the home for life. In considering the best interests of the parent the Court looked at the depletion of cash assets resulting from meeting the shortfall in rest home fees, ordering that if the sibling wanted to remain in the home, rent of market value less 33% should be paid to the Public Trust. The Court determined that the Public Trust would have powers to enter into a tenancy agreement with the sibling and to vary the agreement to allow for a boarder. Alternatively the sibling could choose to vacate the property, or the Public Trust was authorised to take steps to obtain vacant possession of the property. On the issue of whether compensation should be paid, the Court found that the sibling had remained in the family home on favourable terms for many years and could continue renting the property on terms reflecting their financial situation, so there were no grounds to award compensation under s 62. Judgment Date: 6 September 2017 * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *