Paul Ogilvie and Vickie Li lived together for over fourteen years in an Auckland property owned by her parents, raising two children. On separation, his claim to a share of the house failed; it was not relationship property and there was never any enforceable promise he would share in its value.
The two met in 2003. One year later, Ms Li was living in a property on Coronation Road in Auckland suburb Hillcrest purchased by her parents for $323,000. Her parents live in Hong Kong. Their daughter paid rent and managed the property on their behalf, taking in several flatmates who also paid rent. Ms Li ensured mortgage payments were kept up to date, organised routine maintenance and occasionally remitted funds back to her parents.
The High Court was told Mr Ogilvie moved into Coronation Road some two years after he started dating Ms Li. Her parents required that Mr Ogilvie also pay rent. He was an apprentice builder; she a physiotherapy student. Ms Li managed finances for both their household and the Coronation Road property.
Evidence was given of increasing tension as their relationship deteriorated. In good times Ms Li would say they were lucky to have their own house in Auckland; in bad times she would emphasise it was her parents’ house and if Mr Ogilvie left he would get nothing. He took to covertly recording their arguments.
They separated in 2019. Ms Li remained in Coronation Road. Mr Ogilvie had fulltime care of their children, with Ms Li paying child support. He was left with no assets of substance.
Mr Ogilvie claimed his former wife had promised he would share in the value of the property. This was enforceable, he said, because she had full authority to act on her parents’ behalf. They had signed powers of attorney so that Ms Li could deal with Coronation Road in their absence.
Justice Walker ruled Mr Ogilvie was aware of the limited authority Ms Li had been given; she contacted her parents to discuss any major issues that came up. Any comments by Ms Li that the two might one day be gifted ownership gave no rights to ownership, Justice Walker ruled.
Mr Ogilvie further claimed repairs and renovations he carried out on the property created rights to share in its value. This work was largely what might be expected of someone paying less than market rental while living in a property owned by family, Justice Walker said. It was insufficient to justify a claim to an interest in the property itself.
Ogilvie v. Li – High Court (28.06.23)
23.101