A mortgagee sale, a disputed right to remain and a High Court possession order have turned an Auckland property purchase into a prolonged battle over access — involving former Football Fern and Olympian Kristy Hill.
PHOTO: Hill, now 47, was a Football Fern from 2008-2011 and played in the 2008 Beijing Olympics (file). Photo: Sandra Mu / Getty Images
According to reporting by Stuff journalist Marty Sharpe, published on October 5, Hill and other occupants remained at a Blockhouse Bay property after the High Court ruled that the purchaser was entitled to possession.
The case highlights a difficult distinction in real estate: completing a purchase does not always mean immediately gaining physical access to the property.
A large Auckland property — with a complicated handover
The Bolton St property occupies approximately 3,100 square metres and includes a five-bedroom house, swimming pool and tennis court. Stuff describes the buildings and facilities as being in poor condition.
Hill and Ivan Iraia had jointly owned the property since 2022. An earlier ownership group involving Hill purchased it in 2012 for $940,000, according to the report.
Bank of New Zealand put the property through a mortgagee sale earlier this year. Samantha Home Ltd, a company belonging to developer Samnang Ros and his wife, Sreylen, purchased it for $800,000.
However, the sale became the beginning of a possession dispute rather than a straightforward handover.
The two purchase prices alone do not establish the property’s current market value or explain the circumstances behind the mortgagee sale.
Hill challenged the validity of the sale
Stuff reports that Ros contacted Hill before settlement, advising her that it was likely to occur on May 12.
Hill responded that the sale was invalid and that proceedings were before the Māori Land Court. She also indicated that the occupants had not arranged to leave and that Ros was not permitted to enter.
Ros subsequently asked the bank’s solicitors about the land’s status. According to Stuff, they told him it was general land, rather than Māori land.
After settlement, requests for the occupants to vacate continued. A formal demand from Ros’s lawyers required them to leave by May 25.
When that did not happen, the purchaser sought possession through the High Court.
High Court ruled purchaser was entitled to possession
At a hearing on September 24, Justice James MacGillivray ruled that Hill and the other occupants were unlawfully occupying the property, according to Stuff’s account of the decision.
The judge found that the purchaser was entitled to possession and to exclude others. He also noted that the title contained nothing suggesting the property was Māori land.
Hill and Iraia were ordered to pay $25,245 in legal costs, Stuff reported.
Ros told the publication on Friday that the property remained occupied and that he might need to pursue further enforcement involving a court bailiff.
That account reflects the position reported before publication; it does not establish whether possession has subsequently changed.
Purchaser says attempts to resolve the dispute failed
Ros told Stuff that he had offered assistance with finding alternative accommodation.
He also alleged that staff visiting the property encountered aggression and had become reluctant to return. Those claims are Ros’s account, rather than findings established in the supplied report.
The developer said he had been unable to properly inspect the house’s interior. He was considering adding minor dwellings, although his plans remained uncertain.
Stuff reported that Hill could not be reached for comment.
Why mortgagee sales require closer scrutiny
The property’s size and purchase price may attract attention, but the dispute illustrates why buyers need to understand much more than the headline figure.
The Real Estate Authority’s mortgagee-sale guidance warns that these transactions can involve different sale conditions, including properties being offered without vacant possession. It also recognises the stress involved for owners losing their homes and the difficulties that can arise for buyers and agents. The Real Estate Authority
For anyone considering a mortgagee purchase, important questions include:
- Is vacant possession part of the sale agreement?
- Can the property be inspected adequately?
- What protections or warranties does the agreement provide?
- What costs could arise if access or possession is delayed?
These issues need to be assessed against the actual agreement and circumstances of the property.
Property Noise previously covered a different example of the consequences of a difficult handover in a mortgagee-sale mix-up that left a woman without her possessions. That 2016 case involved different circumstances, but demonstrates how much can depend on communication and the settlement process.
A possession dispute, rather than proof of a market trend
This case should not be treated as evidence that mortgagee sales generally end in confrontation, or that former owners routinely refuse to leave.
It is a specific dispute involving a reported court order, contested occupation and a purchaser still seeking access.
For broader market context, Property Noise’s report on how New Zealand’s housing market has changed despite three years of largely stagnant prices examines the changing environment for buyers and sellers.
The immediate question at Bolton St is more concrete: when will the purchaser obtain possession following the High Court’s ruling?
Source attribution: Based on Marty Sharpe’s reporting for Stuff, published October 5, 2026. Case details and party accounts are attributed to that report.