-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ryan v Lobb relates to the interpretation of a resettlement clause contained in the deed of trust for the Lothbury Trust (the Trust) that expressly provided for a resettlement on written notice in the event that the Settlors separated, or their marriage was legally dissolved. Such notice was given by Ms Ryan in 2017 following … Continue reading
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980, provides that the court has the power to vary the terms of a nuptial settlement where the parties’ marriage or civil union comes to an end. The seminal cases on section 182 are Ward v Ward and Clayton v Clayton [Claymark Trust]. These cases have been clear … Continue reading
Trust “busting” is a topic of enduring interest and has been a feature of the trust landscape as long as trusts have been recognised as a valid form of asset ownership. Jane Phare’s Trust busting: Is it the beginning of the end for hiding relationship property? is a case in point. However, it is important … Continue reading
The application for leave in Little v Little (see A Little guidance on s 182) has been denied by the Supreme Court. the prime thrust of the appeal was that the trust in question was not a nuptial settlement. Reference was made to Te Aka Matua o te Ture/Law Commission (the Law Commission) recommendation that … Continue reading
In Preston v Preston the Court of Appeal notes an observation of counsel that “the matter has eaten its head off.” By way of background: The Grant Preston Family Trust (the Trust) was settled in 2004 three years before Mr Preston met Mrs Preston. The beneficiaries of the Trust included Mr Preston’s children from a … Continue reading
Section 182 of the Family Proceedings Act 1980 empowers “… the courts to review a settlement and make orders to remedy the consequences of the failure of the premise on which the settlement was made” in circumstances where a nuptial settlement has been made upon a trust of which either or both of the spouses … Continue reading
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
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
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
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
Matters of Trust 