Dalton v Dalton - [2022] NZHC 1849

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2021-409-000334

[2022] NZHC 1849

BETWEEN
MICHELLE LEE DALTON

Plaintiff

AND

ASHLEY JOHN DALTON

First Defendant

AND

MICHELLE LEE DALTON

Second Defendant

AND

NEW ZEALAND TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing: 27 July 2022

Appearances:

C R D Williams for the Plaintiff No appearance for the defendants

Judgment:

29 July 2022

JUDGMENT OF NATION J

[1] The defendants are trustees of a family trust which owned the family home of the plaintiff (Ms Dalton) and the first defendant (Mr Dalton).

[2] Ms Dalton brought these proceedings to obtain an order for specific performance to require her husband, as a trustee, to execute the documents required to transfer the home from a family trust to her.

[3]In the statement of claim, Mrs Dalton said:

DALTON v DALTON [2022] NZHC 1849 [29 July 2022]

(a) she and Mr Dalton began living together in a de facto relationship in 2000, married on 5 February 2006 and separated on 3 February 2018;

(b) during that relationship, on 12 May 2003, Ms Dalton purchased the property at 30 Ruru Rd, Christchurch (Ruru Rd) and it was transferred to the trust on 16 August 2005;

(c) on 22 May 2019, Ms Dalton filed an application in the Christchurch Family Court for division of her relationship property with Mr Dalton;

(d) on 22 May 2019, Ms Dalton pleaded that, to enable the Family Court to deal with Ruru Rd, it was agreed by the trustees to undertake the following:
(i)nominate an early vesting date;

(ii)appoint Ms Dalton as the sole beneficiary of the trust; and

(iii)distribute Ruru Rd to Ms Dalton.

(e) on 30 January 2020, the trustees entered into a deed of distribution, giving effect to that agreement;

(f) the deed was signed by the three trustees;

(g) Mr Dalton has since refused to sign the documentation ncessary to facilitate the conveyancing as required by the deed, including an authority and instruction form; and

(h) the Family Court proceedings have been placed on hold pending the High Court proceeding.

[4] On 9 August 2021, the proceedings were sent by email to Mr Dalton. New Zealand Trustee Services, by memorandum, advised the Court that it adopted a neutral position and would abide the decision of the Court.

[5] In accordance with a direction from the Court, Mr Dalton was served personally with the proceedings on 23 February 2022. He filed no documents in the

proceedings, which were then set down to be heard by way of formal proof on 27 July 2022.

[6] Pursuant to a direction from the Court, evidence in support of the claim was presented through an affidavit of Ms Dalton. That affidavit confirmed the allegations as pleaded and as referred to earlier.

[7] Ms Dalton said her lawyers had, at various times, tried to negotiate with Mr Dalton. Early in negotiations Mr Dalton confirmed he had agreed to the transfer of Ruru Rd but refused to engage…

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 Dalton v Dalton

Details

AGLC: Dalton v Dalton [2022] NZHC 1849
Case: [2022] NZHC 1849
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand heard proceedings between Michelle Lee Dalton and Ashley John Dalton, regarding a family trust which owned their former matrimonial home. Michelle sought specific performance to require Ashley, as a trustee, to execute documents transferring the home from the trust to her. The family had separated and Michelle had filed proceedings in the Family Court seeking division of relationship property. The trustees had agreed to vest the property in Michelle, but Ashley had refused to sign the necessary documents. The Court was required to determine whether specific performance was appropriate, and if so, on what terms. The Court was also required to decide whether costs should be awarded to Michelle, and if so, in what amount.

The Court noted that the parties had not agreed on the value of the property or how it would be divided between them. The Court was concerned that ordering specific performance might result in the property being treated as Michelle's separate property, rather than being divided equally between the parties. The Court also noted that the trustees had signed a deed of distribution, with Ashley's signature witnessed by his mother rather than a lawyer. The Court asked whether Michelle accepted that if the property were transferred to her name, it would be on the basis that the value of the property would be brought into account between the parties in the Family Court proceedings. Michelle's counsel confirmed that she accepted this.

The Court decided not to grant the order for specific performance at that time, and instead adjourned the application for a telephone conference to allow the parties to resolve their respective claims in the Family Court. The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be provided to the Family Court, with the expectation that it would set the proceedings down for a case management conference. The Court reserved the issue of costs.

The Court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that property is divided fairly between parties in Family Court proceedings, and the need for parties to reach agreement on the value and division of property before seeking orders for specific performance. The Court also emphasised the importance of ensuring that trustees act in accordance with their obligations and seek legal advice where necessary.

Orders