The Family Court overturned as ‘unfair’ a relationship property agreement giving the husband a token 0.05 per cent share of the family home.
Their dispute moved to the High Court where husband and wife were identified only as A and B. The wife claims there were good grounds for unequal division and that the Family Court misunderstood background facts.
The High Court was told the couple’s January 2015 relationship property agreement stated the husband would get only a token share of the family home on separation because it was purchased entirely with money from the wife’s family and it was intended that on separation the wife would ‘remain in residence at the family home so as to provide a stable family home’ for their children.
It came out in evidence at the Family Court that after separation the wife sold the family home using the funds to buy and then later sell two properties in Northland. On remarriage, the wife put funds released from the Northland sales into buying a new family home with title to this home registered in the name of her second husband only. The Family Court judge said her behaviour subsequent to separation cut cross the core purpose of the unequal relationship property agreement. Unequal division was intended to ensure a stable family home; putting family home money into an asset under the sole control of her second husband put this core purpose at risk. The Family Court set aside the unequal relationship property agreement. It was unfair when entered into and was also inconsistent with the wife’s subsequent conduct, the trial judge ruled.
The High Court gave the wife permission to appeal. Her subsequent behaviour was not raised at trial by her husband. The trial judge raised the issue, without giving her an opportunity to explain the background. She says there are legal mechanisms in place to protect her interest in the family home now registered in the name of her second husband. Her appeal is yet to be heard.
B. v. A – High Court (20.03.20)
20.062