Hines v Hines - [2017] NZHC 2143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2017-419-000108 [2017] NZHC 2143

BETWEEN
GEOFFREY ROBERT HINES

Appellant

AND

JOSEPHINE HINES Respondent

Hearing: 15 August 2017

Counsel:

E Hudson for Appellant
E Dawe for Respondent

Judgment:

6 September 2017

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 September 2017 at 11.00 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: Neverman Bennett Lawyers, Hamilton
Beattie Rickman Legal, Hamilton

HINES v HINES [2017] NZHC 2143 [6 September 2017]

[1] Geoffrey Hines and Josephine Hines separated in 2012. The Family Court was tasked with resolving a number of relationship property issues. Mr Hines now appeals to this Court claiming that Family Court Judge G S Collin made three mistakes:

(a) the Judge wrongly excluded a homestead from partnership property;

(b)the Judge wrongly declined to award compensation to Mr Hines for contributions he made to relationship property after separation; and

(c) the Judge wrongly treated a residential property, located at Shakespeare Street, Cambridge, as relationship property, even though it was purchased by Mr Hines following separation.

Background

[2] The background set out by the Family Court Judge is not disputed. I largely adopt the relevant parts of it.

[3] Mr and Mrs Hines married in March 1982 and then travelled overseas for a time. Following their return, they moved onto Mrs Hines’ family farm where they continued to reside together until their separation. Apart from a brief period, Mr Hines’ sole employment has been either on the farm or with a company owned by them, Central Scaffolding (2011) Limited (CSL). Mrs Hines has worked for accounting firms and was in charge of the parties’ finances throughout the duration of their marriage.

The Maungatautari Farm

[4] Following several years of discussions and planning, in 1990 a deed of appropriation was entered into by Mrs Hines and her parents and siblings. As a consequence of that deed, a distribution of trust properties was made to Mrs Hines and her siblings. Mrs Hines received 136.9 hectares of farmland at Maungatautari, together with a plant, equipment and vehicles. The transfer was subject to:

(a) a mortgage in favour of Bank of New Zealand (BNZ) of $200,000;

(b)an unregistered mortgage in favour of G J Hodgson Trust in the sum of $255,566.66; and

(c) a life interest in favour of Mr and Mrs Hodgson in the homestead situated on the Maungatautari farm.

[5] After a deduction of liabilities, the net value of the farm appropriated to her was calculated at $630,500.

[6] Mr Hines is not mentioned in the deed and he was not a final or discretionary beneficiary of the trust. In accordance with the provisions of the deed, the farm was transferred to Mrs Hines’ sole name in 1990. Since that date, the farm has remained registered in her sole name. Located on the farm is a homestead (the Homestead) which was occupied by Mrs Hines’ mother, Mrs Hodgson, until she passed away and a cottage,…

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 Hines v Hines

Details

AGLC: Hines v Hines [2017] NZHC 2143
Case: [2017] NZHC 2143
Decision Date: 6 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Geoffrey Robert Hines appeals against a decision of the Family Court which divided the relationship property of him and his former wife Josephine Hines. The appeal focuses on three issues: the classification of a homestead on a farm, compensation for contributions made to the business of Central Scaffolding Limited after separation, and the classification of a property at Shakespeare Street, Cambridge. The Court holds that the homestead was partnership property, rejects the claim for compensation, and holds that the Shakespeare Street property was not properly classified. The appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remitted to the Family Court. The homestead was part of the farm and was treated as such in the partnership accounts. The Court finds that the Family Court Judge wrongly excluded it from the partnership property. The Court rejects the claim for compensation for contributions made to Central Scaffolding Limited post-separation. The Court finds that the Family Court Judge was correct to find that the appellant had already been compensated for his contributions. Finally, the Court holds that the Family Court Judge wrongly classified the Shakespeare Street property as relationship property. The Court finds that the property was purchased using partnership funds and that the appellant assumed personal liability for the majority of the purchase price. The appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remitted to the Family Court for reconsideration. The appellant is entitled to costs on a 2B basis, less a third for failing to succeed on the s 18B claim, and disbursements.

Orders