New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Classification of relationship property

Legal area

Court

1 May 2018

HAU v HAU [2018] NZHC 881

Citation

[2018] NZFLR 464
Court

High Court

The Family Court erred in finding no jurisdiction; the PRA must be read purposively to permit a surviving spouse to seek declarations/orders under ss25(1) and 25(3) to classify and vest relationship property even where legal title passed by survivorship, because LTA s61 is a rebuttable statutory fiction and equity can establish beneficial tenancy in common post-death; time limits do not bar the present classification step because classification may change estate size and trigger administration, so the PRA claim is not out of time.
2 Feb 2018

BURMESTER v BURMESTER [2018] NZHC 47

Citation

[2018] NZFLR 206
Court

High Court

German law was not established by admissible expert evidence and New Zealand law governs; appellant failed to prove existence of express oral trusts over disputed assets (absence of documentation, inconsistent evidence, adverse inferences for non-disclosure); even if a trust had been proven, s 8(1)(ee) would not convert an uninterrupted beneficial ownership into a new acquisition; therefore funds in the JFC/ANZ account and other contested items are relationship property to be divided, maintenance continuation and costs orders were within judicial discretion, and s 13 did not apply because cir…
25 May 2016

MARTIN v MARTIN [2016] NZCA 225

Citation

[2016] NZCA 225
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the disputed issues were essentially factual with concurrent findings below that were reasonably open on the evidence; in any event the farm was correctly classified as relationship property under s 8(1)(ee) (and s 8(1)(e)) given it was acquired for the parties' common use or benefit, so a second appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
2 Jul 2014

M A H v 168 GROUP LTD [2014] NZHC 1520

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1520
Court

High Court

On the balance of evidence the High Court concluded Mr H did not dispose of the College Street sale proceeds in order to defeat Ms P's rights because Ms P knew she was not the beneficial owner and had agreed to lend her name for a fee; accordingly s44 was not established and the Family Court lacked jurisdiction to make orders under s44(2) against 168 Group Ltd (which also lacked proper notice).
23 Jul 2012

M V G HC PMN CIV-2011-454-000796

Citation

openlaw-4368630c_194f_4ec1_be87_d1cd156815e0.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court: the de facto relationship commenced when Ms M moved to Kalgoorlie on 20 November 2005; the farm interest acquired in May 2005 remained separate property because it was acquired before the relationship commenced; s 9A did not apply because payments repaying mortgage increased equity but did not cause an increase in the farm's value; the s 17 award of $10,000 as compensation for contribution to mortgage payments was fair; no costs award to either party was appropriate.
4 Oct 2011

SB V DC HC AK CIV-2011-404-1005

Citation

openlaw-170e38cf_472b_402f_9df1_c16a1f52d52b.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Family Court's factual findings that the property purchased in 1984 was acquired in contemplation of marriage and intended for the parties' common use and benefit, that rental income was relationship property, and that the delay to marriage was explicable; the appeal was dismissed. The Family Court's refusal to hear submissions on costs was remitted for reconsideration because the pre-trial Calderbank offer should have been able to be addressed before a costs decision was made.
11 Nov 2010

E T S V G L S HC DUN CIV-2010-412-000476

Citation

openlaw-01b8ace3_319e_44ad_ac35_090f2e1787f7.pdf
Court

High Court

The judge did not err: the proper starting point is whether the unsubdivided title meets the statutory family home test; on the undisputed factual findings the other uses of the land were subsidiary to the primary purpose of providing a family residence, so the whole 2ha title constituted the family home and is relationship property; no onus rests on the appellant.
28 Jul 2008

ELLIS V ELLIS HC AK CIV 2008 404 287

Citation

openlaw-224d6994_4039_4ed0_bf5d_4f36a6808866.pdf
Court

High Court

As at the date of separation the Rewa Road property had ceased to be the family home because neither spouse used it as their only or principal residence; temporary daytime visits did not amount to 'residence'; s9A did not apply because increases were market-driven and not attributable to relationship property; however, justice under s17 required compensatory payment to Mrs Ellis, varied from the Family Court award.