22 June 2017

Relationship Property: Schwass v. Marsh

Family support totalling $910,000 to buy farmland and set up an egg supply business at Koromiko near Picton was a loan not a gift and did not form part of relationship property.
Donna Marsh’s de facto relationship with Andrew Schwass came to an end in 2013 after some eleven years.  She claimed a $910,000 advance made three years previously from Andrew’s parents’ family trusts was a gift and was relationship property.  Legal documents evidencing a loan were drawn up, but never signed.  Justice Cull ruled the advance was an interest free loan.  Correspondence between the Schwass family and lawyers acting on the purchase stated the advance was to be a short-term loan.  There were delays while lawyers enquired whether Andrew and Donna were to be borrowers in their own name or through a family trust.  A caveat was lodged against the Koromiko title protecting the Schwass family trusts as creditors under “an agreement to mortgage”, but no such agreement was ever signed.  Oral mortgages over land are not enforeceable.  The land cannot be sold to recover money due.
The Schwass family trusts were protected by the doctrine of part performance, Justice Cull ruled.  Terms of the loan had been agreed as evidenced by the correspondence plus the unsigned documents.  The money had been handed over.  The oral Schwass mortgage was enforceable as a secured loan.     
The $910,000 advance was used to develop an egg farm, Koromiko Free Range Eggs Ltd.
Schwass v. Marsh – High Court (22.06.17)

17.071