Martin v Martin - [2016] NZCA 225

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA74/2016
[2016] NZCA 225

BETWEEN	LESLIE PERCY MARTIN Applicant
AND	JOY ROBERTA MARTIN Respondent

Hearing:	16 May 2016
Court:	Randerson, Miller and Winkelmann JJ
Counsel:	M S McKechnie for Applicant T Sutcliffe for Respondent
Judgment:	25 May 2016 at 11:30 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BThe applicant must pay to the respondent costs for a standard application for leave to appeal and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Randerson J)

Introduction

The parties to this application for leave to appeal began living together in 1991, married in 1992, and separated in 2010. Throughout their relationship of nearly 20 years, they lived on a farm at Whakamaru which Mr Martin had previously farmed in partnership with his former wife. In late 1991, the respondent Mrs Martin sold a house she owned and made available $183,504 from the proceeds so that the applicant Mr Martin could acquire his former wife’s half interest in the farm.
In proceedings before the Family Court, Mrs Martin claimed that the money she made available was a contribution to the relationship and that the farm (now worth in the vicinity of $2 million) was relationship property under s 8(1)(e) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the PRA). Alternatively, Mrs Martin maintained that the farm was relationship property because it was acquired for the common use or benefit of the parties out of property owned by either or both of them before the marriage began in terms of s 8(1)(ee) of the PRA.
Mr Martin’s position was the money was a loan which he repaid to Mrs Martin at her request when there were difficulties in the marriage in 1999/2000. As such, Mr Martin maintained that the farm was separate property.
Other properties, of much lower value than the farm, were also at issue, as we mention below.
In the Family Court, Judge Munro held that the money provided by Mrs Martin was a loan that had been substantially repaid so that the entire farm (other than the homestead) was separate property.[1] Addressing s 8(1)(ee), Judge Munro accepted Mrs Martin’s funds were contributed to enable the purchase of a half share in the farm for their common use and benefit. On that basis, Judge Munro found that, but for the loan, s 8(1)(ee) would apply, at least to the half share acquired with Mrs Martin’s funds. However, because those funds had later been repaid, Judge Munro found that s 8(1)(ee) did not apply.
[1]Martin v Martin [2014] NZFC 3492.
Judge Munro did not make any specific finding about the application of s 8(1)(e) to the farm.
Mrs Martin appealed to the High Court. Courtney J found:[2]
(a)On the facts, the Family Court had erred in finding that the funds Mrs Martin provided were a loan. She found that, on the totality of the evidence, Mrs Martin offered her money without any conditions attached and that Mr Martin accepted…

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 [2016] NZCA 225
Case: [2016] NZCA 225
Decision Date: 25 May 2016 at 11:30 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Leslie Percy Martin sought leave to appeal against a decision of the High Court that declined his application to appeal a decision of the Family Court concerning the division of property between him and Joy Roberta Martin, his former wife. The parties had been in a de facto relationship from 1991 to 2010, and were married during part of that period. Joy Roberta Martin argued that money she provided for Leslie Percy Martin to acquire his former wife’s half interest in a farm, as well as other properties, was a contribution to their relationship, and that these properties were relationship property. Leslie Percy Martin argued that the money was a loan which he had substantially repaid, and that the properties were therefore his separate property. In the Family Court, Judge Munro found that Leslie Percy Martin had substantially repaid the loan, and that the farm was his separate property. However, Judge Munro also found that the farm was relationship property because it had been acquired for the common use and benefit of the parties. Joy Roberta Martin appealed to the High Court, which found that the money had been a contribution to the relationship and that the farm was relationship property. Leslie Percy Martin sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, which declined his application.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Court should grant leave for a second appeal on an essentially factual issue, and whether the factual findings made in the High Court were not reasonably open to the Judge or that there was any appearance of error in that respect such as to warrant the grant of leave. The Court of Appeal found that the factual findings made in both the Family Court and the High Court were opposite conclusions on the status of the funds provided by Joy Roberta Martin, but that the findings made in the High Court were reasonably open to the Judge. The Court of Appeal was not persuaded that there was any appearance of error in the High Court’s decision such as to warrant the grant of leave for a second appeal on an essentially factual issue. The Court of Appeal found that the farm was properly classified as relationship property under section 8(1)(ee) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, and that the High Court correctly determined that the proceeds of sale of the Kawhia property and the property at 34 Pokuru Road were also relationship property. The Court of Appeal also found that the property at 36 Pokuru Road was correctly characterised in the High Court as separate property.

The Court of Appeal declined Leslie Percy Martin’s application for leave to appeal. The Court ordered that Leslie Percy Martin must pay to Joy Roberta Martin costs for a standard application for leave to appeal and usual disbursements.

Orders