Martin v Martin - [2015] NZHC 1823

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CIV-2014-463-000123 [2015] NZHC 1823

IN THE MATTER OF
an appeal pursuant to the Property

(Relationships) Act 1976, s 39

BETWEEN

JOY ROBERTA MARTIN Appellant

AND

LESLIE PERCY MARTIN Respondent

Hearing: 12 February 2015

Appearances:

T Sutcliffe for Appellant
M S McKechnie for Respondent

Judgment:

4 August 2015

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 4 August 2015 at 2.30 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date……………………….

MARTIN v MARTIN [2015] NZHC 1823 [4 August 2015]

Introduction

[1] Joy and Leslie Martin began living together in 1991 and married in 1992. They separated in 2010. Throughout the relationship the couple lived on the farm that Mr Martin had run in partnership with his former wife. The Family Court had ordered that this partnership continue pending the sale of the farm, either to a third party or to Mr Martin. In late 1991 Mrs Martin sold a house that she owned and made $183,504 from the proceeds available so that Mr Martin could acquire the farm.

[2] Mrs Martin claims that the money was a contribution to the relationship and the farm is relationship property. Alternatively, she asserts that it was acquired from her funds for the common use and benefit of the couple. Mr Martin maintains that the money was a loan that he has substantially repaid and that the farm is his separate property.

[3] In the Family Court Judge J F Munro held that the money was a loan that had been substantially repaid so that the entire farm was Mr Martin’s separate property.1
Nor did Mrs Martin have any interest in the increase in the value of the farm over the period of the marriage. The Judge did, however, find that Mrs Martin had a claim under s 17 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) on the basis that her funding had sustained Mr Martin’s interest in the farm.

[4] Mrs Martin appeals the finding that the farm is Mr Martin’s separate property

on the grounds that the Judge:

(a) failed to address the application of s 8(1)(e) of the PRA; (b) incorrectly applied s 8(1)(ee) of the PRA;
(c) failed to properly address the application of s 9A of the PRA;

(d) made factual findings that were against the weight of the evidence;

(e) made inconsistent rulings in relation to the apportionment of farm income.

1 Martin v Martin [2014] NZFC 3492.

[5] Mrs Martin also appeals:

(a) The Judge’s treatment of a property at 34 Pokuru Road, Whakamaru as her separate property and the order requiring her to account to Mr Martin for $60,000 he advanced for the purchase.

(b)The Judge’s failure to take into account monies held in the farm account at the date of separation which Mrs Martin claims were relationship property.

(c) The order requiring her to account for post-separation payments made by Mr Martin on the ground that the…

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 Martin v Martin

Details

AGLC: Martin v Martin [2015] NZHC 1823
Case: [2015] NZHC 1823
Decision Date: 4 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joy and Leslie Martin married in 1992 and lived together on a farm they ran as a joint enterprise. The central issue in this appeal and cross-appeal was whether Mrs Martin’s contribution to the purchase of the farm was a contribution to the relationship or a loan. The Family Court found that the money was a loan and that the farm was separate property. Mrs Martin appeals and Mr Martin cross-appeals. The appeal was allowed and the cross-appeal was partly allowed. The finding that the farm was separate property was set aside. The appeal and cross-appeal in relation to other assets were dismissed. The parties were ordered to confer as to the value and method of division of the assets that were relationship property. If agreement could not be reached the parties could seek further directions. Mrs Martin was awarded costs on a 2B basis. The Court found that the evidence showed that Mrs Martin offered her money without any conditions attached to it and Mr Martin accepted it on that basis. The subsequent mutual conduct was not inconsistent with that. The money was therefore to be viewed as a contribution to the relationship, not a loan. The farm was properly classified as relationship property under s 8(1)(e). It was also relationship property under s 8(1)(ee) as it was acquired for the common use and benefit of the parties. The Court held that interest should run from six months after separation rather than the date of separation.

Orders