New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Separate property

  • 6 Dec 2021

    STUART v STONEHAM [2021] NZHC 3316

    Citation
    [2021] NZHC 3316
    Court
    High Court

    Court held on appeal that the original one‑third inherited beneficial interest remained separate but the additional one‑sixth interest acquired using relationship funds (and any increase attributable to that application) was relationship property under s 9A; further, inherited cash paid into accounts and used over a multi‑year period was intermingled with relationship property with consent such that it lost separate character under s 10(2); quantified relationship portion of appellant's share as $269,293 (each party share $134,646.50); DST debt treated as relationship property to extent found…

  • 1 Sept 2020

    HOLMES v CROMBIE [2020] NZHC 2262

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 2262
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court upheld the Family Court judgment: Montgomery Place was relationship property due to intermingling of separate funds with joint relationship property (s10(2)), subject only to the respondent's concession to repay $90,811.64; the additional $10,000 deposit and $15,550.42 Bonus Bonds were not proven to be separate property; the $7,809.44 withdrawal from the joint account remained relationship property and must be returned to the pool; claims for missing chattels lacked sufficient evidence to award a specific sum; and services/payments to Fyfe did not establish a significant contri…

  • 26 Oct 2018

    COSSIO v COSSIO [2018] NZHC 2779

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 2779
    Court
    High Court

    JCL shares were relationship property because the evidence established the shares were transferred for value with a binding debt owed to the vendor (debt‑back) rather than gratuitous succession; repayments from dividends reduced the liability but did not convert the nature of the original transaction into a succession/gift. Permathene shares, although acquired via trust distributions, were partly sustained by application of relationship property (a $30,000 interest‑free advance and undrawn salary) such that s 17 may give rise to a compensatory adjustment. The Family Court costs award was set…

  • 29 Jun 2018

    DAVID CHARLES BOSKETT v WILMA TANGDOL BOSKETT [2018] NZHC 1596

    Citation
    [2018] NZHC 1596
    Court
    High Court

    The appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the non-Pfizer funds were separate property and, in light of his non-disclosure and obstruction, the court treated the Heartland proceeds ($47,789 of which $40,000 was applied to purchase), the circa $10,000 cash deposit, and the Today's Realty Ltd balance ($17,989) as relationship property. That yielded additional relationship property of about $76,000, half to respondent $38,000; the court awarded interest at 12.5% p.a. for four years ($19,000) resulting in a total award of $57,000 to replace the Family Court figure. The appeal wa…

  • 14 Feb 2017

    MCILRAITH v MCILRAITH [2017] NZCA 8

    Citation
    [2017] NZCA 8
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and identified four discrete legal issues for determination: whether the 5,523 B shares were separate property, whether intermingling occurred and its consequences, whether increases in value are attributable to relationship property and subject to division, and whether the s17 award should be increased; leave was granted because these issues warranted appellate consideration of the High Court's findings.

  • 15 Mar 2012

    JOHN EDWARD FOOTE V TRACY LEANNE REA HC TAU CIV 2011-470-000315

    Citation
    openlaw-5a4d8c42_c97c_42be_be00_8fa827a4580d.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Judge Maude's factual finding that the first Atascadero property was acquired after the relationship began from funds to which the appellant was effectively entitled and for the common use or common benefit of both partners was open on the evidence; proceeds of sale deployed into subsequent Californian purchases therefore became relationship property under s 8(1)(ee); excluding those proceeds from the 2002 relationship property agreement produced serious injustice warranting setting the agreement aside, and the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that outcome.

  • 20 Jul 2010

    GRAHAM V FOWLER HC AK CIV-2009-404-6470

    Citation
    openlaw-e2b8dccf_798d_4a06_8007_30aa327e9358.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The High Court held the $354,924 advance to F & G Ltd was made from respondent's separate property and remained separate because there was no sufficient evidence of an intention to transfer or gift that asset to relationship property; s 9A(3) and s 17 did not convert the advance into relationship property; the $58,731 advanced from F & G Ltd to the appellant was her personal debt; advances to Mustang Charters were predominantly separate; no compensable dissipation under s 18C was proved; Coco income was separate and any contribution by appellant would yield, at most, a trivial award; the appr…

  • 19 May 2009

    ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007

    Citation
    ROSE V ROSE SC 73/2007
    Court
    Supreme Court

    The Court held that a partner's beneficial interest in partnership assets can be relationship property and that where relationship property was applied to develop vineyards and where the non‑owning spouse's actions (including domestic work and paid employment) indirectly enabled or funded development, the whole of the increase in value falls to be treated as relationship property under s 9A; where increases arise under s 9A(2) parties' shares are determined by their respective contributions to the increase, and on the facts the Court of Appeal's allocations and deductions were justified; acco…

  • 20 Dec 2007

    K M G HUNTER V D M CARDEN HC AK CIV 2006-404-006282

    Citation
    openlaw-6e3437da_a94d_419b_a17e_fe2278beeee3.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Plaintiff has no arguable case because defendant exercised acceptable professional judgment, the key issues and evidence (including separate property and funding of acquisitions) were before the High Court and Court of Appeal which found the presentation adequate, and plaintiff cannot show a realistic prospect that different conduct by defendant would have produced a different outcome; summary judgment for defendant is warranted.