After a Supreme Court ruling that Property (Relationship) Act also covers polyamorous relationships, the Family Court divided assets equally between Fiona, Lilach and Brett who had lived together on a rural Auckland property at Kumeu for fifteen years.
Fiona Mead claimed she was entitled to the greater share. She financed the Kumeu purchase and it was her money that maintained their ‘commune-like’ lifestyle, she said.
Greater financial contributions by one party to a relationship are common, Judge Muir said. Parties should not be ‘hypnotised’ by unequal cash contributions when dividing relationship property, he said.
Fiona was ordered to pay Lilach Paul $624,400; Brett Paul $618,100.
The Family Court was told the three formed a polyamorous relationship in 2002.
Fiona had trained as a vet, later developing a business practising holistic animal medicine.
Lilach was raised on a kibbutz in Israel. She is a sculptor.
Paul spent time in the Auckland Centrepoint community. He ran a lawnmowing business.
The court was told all three had a common interest in a US-based esoteric teaching organisation called Builders of the Adytum.
When their triangular relationship ended in 2017, the major relationship asset was a rural property held in Fiona’s name on Trotting Course Drive at Kumeu, agreed to be now worth $1.8 million.
Fiona said she is entitled to fifty per cent of relationship property, with Lilach and Paul to receive twenty-five per cent each.
Judge Muir ruled there was a high degree of financial interdependence between the three with each contributing in different ways. Net assets are to be split equally, he ruled, with adjustments made for post-separation revenue and expenses covering the eight year period since separation.
Paul v. Mead – Family Court (17.10.25)
25.221