Early in their relationship he said he would never make a claim against her house, the matrimonial home from her previous marriage. Over fifteen years later, she was forced by court order to pay $305,900 as his share of the house assessed as relationship property at the end of their marriage. Eleven days after resentfully handing over the money, she responded to his invitation to meet for dinner at a restaurant. During the course of the meal he transferred $250,000 back to her using a banking app on his phone. Later changing his mind, he sued to recover the money.
The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether he was rational but foolish, or irrational and taken advantage of, when handing back the bulk of his relationship property payout. The court was told he suffered mental difficulties following solvent exposure working as an automotive spray painter and brain damage after competing as a kickboxer. He said the $250,000 was a conditional gift, subject to the two getting back together permanently.
The Court of Appeal ruled payment of the $250,000 was an unconditional gift. It was an attempt to revive their relationship. Viewed objectively, it could be considered foolish, but it was not irrational, the court said. A psychiatric examination two years after the gift was made could not specify he was under any mental incapacity when handing over the $250,000. It was clear in recordings she made of their conversations, returning most of the relationship property settlement recognised his previous promise not to claim against her house and would clear the way to a possible resumption of their earlier relationship. But payment was the first step along the way; there was no promise a long-term relationship would follow. They did get back on familiar terms for some twelve months before she said she was now romantically involved with someone else and no longer wished to continue their relationship. He then sued, demanding return of the $250,000.
Payment of $250,000 was an unconditional gift preparing the way for a possible reconciliation, the court ruled. It was not conditional on their relationship continuing. She could keep the money.
Hurlimann v. Noland – Court of Appeal (9.03.20)
20.052