What was presented as a tidy ‘one in-one out’ relationship property settlement bogged down with allegations of fraud and a dispute over operation of an ASB joint bank account all complicated by emission trading scheme rights attached to a central North Island plantation.
Lynette Mills and Graham Mills separated in 2010. Lynette and Carl Peterson became an item in 2014. The following year, all three decided the best way to tidy up their financial affairs was to have Mr Peterson acquire Mr Mills relationship property, with Mr Peterson to take over responsibility for Mr Mills relationship debts.
The first complication was an ASB joint account and mortgage held in the names of both Lynette and Graham Mills. Graham continued operating the account. ASB did not agree to a straight swap of signatories to the bank account and bank loans. Lynette and Graham subsequently gave conflicting instructions to ASB over an overdraft facility attached to the account.
Legal action threatened against both ASB and Graham Mills led to an out of court settlement in late 2021.
Lynette Mills and Carl Peterson claim this settlement did not call a halt to their further legal action against Graham Mills. The High Court ruled otherwise.
They allege Graham is guilty of ‘name fraud’ and is liable in the tort of deceit. Lynette and Graham were not married; Graham adopted Lynette’s surname of Mills, becoming known as Graham Mills. It was alleged this was part of a deceitful plan to hide from the Bank the fact he had been bankrupted earlier under a different name.
The High Court ruled there was no ‘unlawful purpose’ in Mr Mills changing his name; there was no intention to defraud. And even if the change of name were for a fraudulent purpose, Lynette Mills and Carl Peterson suffered no loss as a result.
In the Court of Appeal, Lynette and Carl were told to make progress on their appeal over a claimed right to sue Graham Mills. Their appeal appears to lack merit, the court said. They have not paid costs levied on prior unsuccessful court applications. They dispute a court ruling requiring payment into court as security for Mr Mills legal costs should their appeal fail.
They claim funds are short. Sale of a forested block would help, but disputed ownership of emission trading scheme rights claimed in part by Graham are proving a handicap, they say. Evidence was given valuing these rights at slightly over $300,000. He says this dispute does not block a sale, it only goes to price on selling.
Mills v. Dalzell – High Court (23.09.22) and Court of Appeal (21.03.23 & 20.09.23)
23.160