Ansin v Ramage - [2023] NZHC 1989

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B,

11C AND 11D OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE

https://

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-2358

[2023] NZHC 1989

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

IN THE MATTER

of an appeal under s 39 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

JACQUELINE ANNE ANSIN

Appellant

AND

JON MORGAN RAMAGE

Respondent

Hearing: 22 June 2023

Appearances:

B Snedden for the Appellant J Hawker for the Respondent

Judgment:

27 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 27 July 2023 at 3:30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:Martelli McKegg (J Lethbridge), Auckland Haigh Lyon Lawyers Ltd (J Hawker), Auckland

Counsel: B Snedden, Auckland

ANSIN v RAMAGE [2023] NZHC 1989 [27 July 2023]

[1] Jacqueline Anne Ansin appeals against a decision of Judge A M Manuel in the Family Court at Auckland dated 3 November 2022.1 The Judge ordered the sale of two of the parties’ major assets, being their former family home at 1 Ventnor Road, Remuera, Auckland (occupied by the appellant) and a piece of bare land at 425D Boat Harbour Road, Coromandel (in the effective possession of the respondent).

Family Court decision

[2] At the outset of the decision, Judge Manuel noted that in the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 proceedings commenced in 2021 by the respondent, he sought an interim order for sale of the Ventnor Road property (Ventnor). Ms Ansin then made a cross-application for the sale of the Boat Harbour Road property (Boat Harbour). The Judge summarised the position of the parties as follows:

[4] Mr Ramage wants to retain Boat Harbour in the parties’ property division and is opposing an order for sale. Ms Ansin wants to retain Ventnor and is opposed to a sale of that property. Neither party can afford to pay the expenses on the property they wish to retain.

[3] The Judge then listed the assets and liabilities available for division. The assets were:

(a)Lily & Louis Ltd (Lily & Louis), a public relations company where both parties had worked. It had been agreed that the appellant would retain the company and the respondent would eventually leave. No valuation was available.

(b)Ventnor property — two different valuations ($3.2 million and
$4.25 million) were produced. The Judge identified issues with both valuations.

(c)Boat Harbour property — a valuation for $975,000 was produced by Mr Ramage. The Judge acknowledged that there was possibly some extra value for forestry rights.

1 Ramage v Ansin [2022] NZFC 11285.

(d)LilyLumiere Ltd (the LilyLumiere funds) — the proceeds of sale for a commercial property. While the funds were under the control of the appellant, they diminished from $1.2 million to $634,000. These funds were paid into Court shortly after the 5 August 2022 hearing.

(e)Sundry items…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ansin v Ramage

Details

AGLC: Ansin v Ramage [2023] NZHC 1989
Case: [2023] NZHC 1989
Decision Date: 27 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard an appeal by Jacqueline Anne Ansin against a Family Court decision ordering the sale of two of the parties' major assets. The assets were the former family home at 1 Ventnor Road, Remuera, Auckland, and a piece of bare land at 425D Boat Harbour Road, Coromandel. The appeal focused on whether the Family Court was correct to order the sale of these properties, particularly the Ventnor Road property, before resolving other substantive claims. The Family Court had ordered the sale of the properties because neither party could afford to pay the expenses on the property they wished to retain. The court found that retaining the properties would lead to ongoing dissipation of relationship property, a potential reduction in their values, and an inability to access capital and re-enter the housing market. The High Court considered the broad power of the Family Court under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 to make interim orders for the sale of relationship property if it considered it appropriate in the circumstances. The court found that the Family Court's decision to order the sale of the Ventnor property was consistent with the purposes and principles of the Act, particularly the principle that questions about relationship property should be resolved as inexpensively, simply, and speedily as is consistent with justice. The court held that the parties' financial circumstances would continue to deteriorate if the Ventnor property was not sold, and the sale order was appropriate to avoid a forced sale of the properties. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were to follow the event.

Orders