03 December 2021

Relationship Property: Paul v. Mead

Relationship property rules on separation apply also to polyamorous relationships the Court of Appeal ruled recommending an equal split between a threesome who lived together for fifteen years. In dispute was an Auckland property valued at $2.1 million in 2017. 

Lilach and Brett married in 1993.  Lilach met Fiona in 1999.  All three formed a polyamorous relationship three years later.  Their joint relationships were marked by a private ceremony in which Fiona received a ring identical to the wedding rings worn by Brett and Lilach. They lived on a four hectare property in Kumeu purchased in Fiona’s name.  All three contributed to household outgoings.  They slept together most nights.  At law, it was a triangular relationship: Brett and Lilach married; Lilach and Fiona de facto partners; Brett and Fiona de facto partners.

Over a period of months some fifteen years later, all three relationships came to an end.  Fiona remained living at Kumeu.  Disputes over relationship property followed.

The Property (Relationships) Act has ‘coupledom’ as its focus.  But this coupledom need not be exclusive, the Court of Appeal ruled in a test case.  An individual can be in more than one relationship simultaneously, it said.  Such an arrangement would arise where an individual is married and lives with that partner most of the time but is also in a de facto relationship with another living with that person several days most weeks.  All three can claim relationship property rights.  Different start and end dates for the relationships are relevant when determining division of relationship property, the court ruled.

The Property (Relationships) Act applied similarly to the three-way polyamorous relationship between Lilach, Brett and Fiona the court ruled.

Paul v. Mead – Court of Appeal (3.12.21)

22.013