15 November 2017

Relationship Property: Findlay v. Findlay

The High Court awarded $500,000 compensation to Anne-Marie Findlay recognising that while there was no relationship property of any value when her marriage ended in 2010 her prior contributions did provide a springboard for former spouse Scott to pick up lucrative repair contracts after the Christchurch earthquakes. 
One perverse effect of damage wrought by the series of earthquakes in Christchurch was to throw a lifeline to builder Scott Findlay.  The Findlay family were on their backsides after the 2008 global financial crisis.  A speculative Linden Grove project had failed.  Bankruptcy loomed.  The family home was sold.  Mr Findlay’s father provided financial support to bail them out.  Mrs Findlay left their 17-year marriage in 2010.  Financial providence came in the form of destruction left in the trail of Christchurch’s earthquakes.  The High Court was told of Mr Findlay’s business drawings in the two years following being $921,000 and $717,500.  An aggrieved Mrs Findlay complained she was entitled to a share.  Her former husband was sympathetic, but not willing to fork out the nearly one million dollars she wanted.
Justice Davidson ruled there was no relationship property in existence at the time of separation.  Half of nothing is nothing.  Mrs Findlay had no grounds to dispute business structures set up after separation which had the effect of removing her from decision-making roles in her former husband’s business.  The rump of their old business had been sold into a new company at book value and a new family trust had been set up for the benefit of their children, all to the exclusion of Mrs Findlay.
Justice Davidson ruled she was entitled to compensation for the direct and indirect benefits she provided her husband while he built up his skills as a builder and developed business contacts to get ongoing work.  Her work in raising their family, using her banking experience to manage financial affairs and encouragement for her husband to complete his trade licensing provided the base for his later success.  A constructive trust existed in her favour.  Equity entitled her to a claim against the ongoing business enterprise of her former husband.  The court award of $500,000 amounts to just over half the amount she claimed.     
Findlay v. Findlay – High Court (15.11.17)

18.001