Relationship property disputes involving Maori Land must be heard in the Maori Land Court, causing delays when disputes over other relationship assets are decided separately in the Family Court.
Final resolution of a relationship property dispute between Manaia Inia Rehu and Edie Hunapo Moke ground to a halt because one of Mr Rehu’s assets was Maori land, a home at Rapaki on the shores of Lyttelton Harbour. Ms Moke owned a house in the Christchurch suburb of Spreydon.
The High Court provided a solution; court orders over division of the increased value of Ms Moke’s house remained on hold until such time as a Maori Land Court decision was given over Mr Rehu’s Maori land, then the net effect of the two judgments would then apply.
The two first met in late 2007, shortly after Mr Rehu’s previous relationship broke up. Mr Rehu worked on oil rigs out of Singapore; Ms Moke as a company director. They married in August 2010, separating four years later.
The High Court ruled that the properties owned by each of them remained separate property, but each was entitled to a half share in any increase in value of the property owned by the other. On figures before the court, this would likely require Mr Rehu to pay some $40,000 to $45,000. But the High Court could not order payment. The Maori Land Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Maori land; it is the better venue to analyse and apply Maori customary law as it applies to land left in Maori hands after European colonisation.
As a separate issue, Mr Rehu disputed Ms Moke’s claim for repayment of $350,000 he received in early 2008. Mr Rehu said it was a gift; Ms Moke called it a loan. The funds were used variously by Mr Rehu to complete the purchase of a Porsche, pay off a bank loan and make relationship property payouts to his previous partner. This $350,000 was advanced before the two entered into a de facto relationship, Justice Dobson ruled. The two were then not living together continuously as a couple. The amount of the loan was not relationship property. While it was a significant amount to hand over early in their relationship, said Justice Dobson, it signalled Ms Moke’s commitment to the relationship. There was no evidence of a gift; it was a loan, repayable on demand. The court was told Mr Rehu was miffed when Ms Moke demanded repayment. He made a greater financial contribution whilst they were together: Mr Rehu earned some $1.2 million over the period; Ms Moke $288,000.
Rehu v. Moke – High Court (24.02.20)
20.034