Tribunal orders units to be sold

THE sons of two Hervey Bay retirees have each been ordered to sell their mother's unit to settle a long-running "saga".

Lindsay Caplick and Jim Holland have been at loggerheads with Milstern Retirement Living, the Sydney-based operator of Urrimbirra Retirement Village, since their fathers died in mid-2006.

Reinhold and Hazel Caplick leased Unit 13 in 1989 for $62,000 while James and Eunice Holland leased Unit 36 in 1993 for $76,000.

When their respective husbands died, the women vacated the units in May and April, 2006.

Their sons, as executors of their respective estates, have been trying to realise the net value of their residence rights ever since.

A Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal judgment released online this week detailed how the men wanted Milstern to buy back the unit by paying an "exit entitlement" based on independent valuations.

Milstern valued the Holland unit at $55,000 in April, 2006, while a government-appointed valuer estimated it was worth $122,500, subject to repairs five months later.

Milstern valued the Caplick unit at $55,000 while a government valuer estimated $109,500 after repairs.

By 2011, Milstern's valuer had put both properties at $45,000 while a QCAT-appointed valuer arrived at $120,000 and $130,000 for the Caplick and Holland units respectively.

QCAT member John Forbes said Milstern had refused to repurchase the units at prices acceptable to Mr Caplick and Mr Holland.

He said his "power to bring this protracted dispute to a tidy, satisfactory conclusion is limited".

Mr Forbes ordered the men to list the units for sale with real estate agents. If the units are not sold at an acceptable price by June 30, the units must go to auction.

"The longer this saga continues the more the unit, and the interests of the Holland/Caplick estate, are likely to deteriorate," he said.

"A resolution is overdue, but ultimately that is in the hands of (Messrs Holland and Caplick).

"In the light of the law, the evidence, and the decision of July 19, 2011, it cannot be imposed by the tribunal.

"(Either man) is not entitled to an order that Milstern buy the unit at either of the most recent valuations.

"I see no point in piling valuation upon valuation or in attempting to convene further conferences.

"In the circumstances of this case I consider it just to order ... (Milstern Retirement Living) pay (Mr Holland's) costs of an incidental to the sale, by auction or otherwise, of the subject property."