A relationship property claim to a $700,000 home in Auckland suburb Avondale failed because her former spouse was not absolute owner of his recorded half share, he held title in trust for his mother.
Jina Kim claimed a share of the Mead Street property after her five year marriage to Shane Young came to an end. Shane was recorded on the title as part-owner together with his elderly mother.
The High Court was told Mead Street was purchased in 1993. Shane’s mother and now deceased father struggled to get mortgage finance. Both were beneficiaries. ASB Bank lending criteria at the time required at least one of the registered owners to have a job, working at least forty hours per week. Shane then lived away from home, working fulltime in Northland. At his parents’ request, Shane agreed to join them on the title, effectively guaranteeing their mortgage repayments. Shane did not make any mortgage payments.
After his father’s death, Shane returned home, living rent-free at Mead Street, making occasional contributions towards household outgoings. One consequence of his father’s death was that Shane’s registered legal ownership of the house increased from one-third share to one half.
Jina Kim told the High Court she was always left with the impression that Shane was part-owner of the house. They lived there after marrying. They didn’t pay rent. She put some of the $13,000 wedding gift provided by her Korean parents towards house renovations.
Justice Gordon ruled Shane’s ownership interest was held in trust for his mother. Mead Street was not relationship property. The intention in 1993 when Shane’s name was put on the title was that he held title on behalf of his parents. He was a trustee. A Property Law Act order was made having his mother alone registered as owner of Mead Street. Her mortgage was paid off in 1999, just after the death of her husband.
Young v. Young – High Court (19.11.20)
20.180