Finding that the facts supposedly supporting a one-sided relationship property agreement between a couple married in Russia appeared contrary to the true position, the High Court ordered their case re-opened.
In 1999, Natalia Brown and Oleg Akulinin married in Vladivostock. Relocating to New Zealand, they separated in 2014. Their major asset was a family home in the Auckland suburb Avondale. Subsequently, a relationship property agreement was agreed with Oleg receiving 0.05 per cent as his share: a total of $2120. The agreement stated Natalia’s family had provided all the money for purchase of their family home. Later seeking to overturn the one-sided agreement, Oleg told the High Court he provided one-third of the cash for their home purchase; the balance came from mortgage finance with both contributing to mortgage repayments. Given confusion over the true financial position, Justice Jagose sent the case back to the Family Court for a full rehearing.
The High Court was told Oleg claimed Natalia had broken an understanding that the Avondale home would be kept by her as a family home for their children: a son and a further child from her earlier relationship. After her relationship with Oleg ended, she sold; lending the money to her new partner for his purchase of a Kerikeri property. The two later married. Ownership of the Kerikeri property was registered in her second husband’s name alone.
Brown v. Akulinin – High Court (20.05.20)
20.086