//
archives

Relationship Property

This category contains 40 posts

Directors are not owners

Pisidia Holdings Limited v Darby relates to an application to lapse notices of claim lodged against the title of seven properties following the end of the relationship between John Darby and Kristen Darby.  The land in question was owned as to a 2/5th share by Pisidia Holdings Limited (Pisidia), the shares in which are held … Continue reading

What’s left for the “spouse”?

The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA) has primary jurisdiction over relationship property.   However, when there is a trust (or trusts) in the mix, the final division of property can  be complicated – and often neither side (nor the settlors or trustees who may be caught in the cross-fire) will consider the end result just … Continue reading

S 182 update

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision in Thakurdas v Wadsworth that executors can bring proceedings under s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act. As noted at [16]: “We add that it is now settled law that s 182 serves an important purpose in relationship property litigation, allowing courts to address property … Continue reading

David and Goliath?

Pertinent facts: On first blush Biggs v Biggs has the appearance of a David and Goliath style contest.   Nation J refers at [10] to the 2300 pages of documents that have had to be considered and at [11] notes that when claims are pursued “in a particular way, there can be scant recognition of the … Continue reading

A cleft in the armour of joint ownership?

When two people own a property jointly, what is legally referred to as being joint tenants (as distinct from tenants in common, where each party owns only a set percentage of an asset), and where one of the two joint owner dies, the survivor inherits the interest of the other joint tenant. There is no … Continue reading

How afraid should we be of Clayton?

The Supreme Court decision in Clayton v Clayton changed the trust landscape.  But how afraid should we be?  Are all trusts vulnerable to Clayton-style challenge?  Or just the ones that push the envelope?  And, if the latter, how far can one push before there is a problem? A recent decision of Moore J has provided … Continue reading

What makes a settlement nuptial?

Following the Supreme Court decision in Clayton v Clayton (Claymark Trust) fresh light has been shed upon the scope of s 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 in the case of Da Silva v Da Silva. By way of background s 182 gives the Court the discretion following divorce (the section does not apply to de facto relationships)  … Continue reading

$10,000 per year for contributions to trust

The decision in Judd v Hawkes Bay Trustee Company Limited (see Another tributary in the trickle of constructive trust cases) has been upheld on appeal. By way of background  Richard Hodgkinson and Michelle Judd were married for six and a half years. Over that period they lived in a property in Lane Road, Havelock North, … Continue reading

Relationship property review

The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act) is now under review as part of a significant project that will involve consultation with the public and key stakeholders.  The outcome of the review is to be reported back the Minister of Justice in November 2018.  See Law Commission to review Property (Relationships) Act 1976. Not surprisingly … Continue reading

The Supreme Court Writes Back

The long-awaited decision (issued in fact as two separate decisions) in Clayton v Clayton were released today (23 March 2016). The first decision relates to the Vaughan Road Property Trust (VRPT) and the second to the Claymark Trust. Background Mr and Mrs Clayton commenced a de facto relationship in 1986 and married in 1989. They … Continue reading

Categories