Meo v Meo - [2021] NZHC 1601

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://www.justice.govt.nz/family/about/restriction-on-publishing-judgments/

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2021-485-27

[2021] NZHC 1601

UNDER the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

JACQUENLINE YASMIN RABEENA MEO

Appellant

AND

DAVID ANTHONY MEO

Respondent

Hearing: 8 June 2021

Appearances:

K Lakshman for Appellant F M Gush for Respondent

Judgment:

30 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1] Mr and Mrs Meo separated in October 2013. Five years later, in February 2018, Mr Meo filed proceedings in the Family Court seeking division of relationship property. Judge Black issued judgment in December 2020 addressing what he identified as four issues between the parties requiring resolution. 1

1 Meo v Rabeena [2020] NZFC 11100 [Family Court decision].

MEO v MEO [2021] NZHC 1601 [30 June 2021]

[2] Unhappy with the Family Court’s judgment, Ms Meo now appeals advancing four grounds.

[3] First, she says the Judge wrongly took into account post-separation loan repayments by Mr Meo concerning the family home in Seatoun, Wellington. Ms Meo says this debt was not relationship debt and therefore did not fall within the reach of the Family Court’s jurisdiction to order compensation under s 18B of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (the Act).2

[4] Second, Ms Meo says retained earnings in a company owned by Mr Meo ought to have been treated as a dividend, reducing the balance of an overdrawn shareholders account in her favour. She says the Family Court overlooked undisputed evidence that the retained earnings were a separate asset requiring division and therefore failed to deal with the issue.

[5] Finally, in combined third and fourth grounds of appeal, Ms Meo argues that an equalisation payment between the parties ordered by the Family Court requires adjustment. However, she accepted that the third and fourth grounds only needed to be considered if her appeal on the second ground was successful.

Background

[6] As noted, Mr and Mrs Meo separated in October 2013 after a marriage lasting 21 years.

[7] In 2018 Mr Meo brought proceedings in the Family Court seeking division of relationship property.

[8] The evidence before the Family Court and the judgment under appeal both reveal a relatively fragile financial position at the time of separation and subsequently. A brief overview of the parties’ situation serves to illustrate the point:

2 That provision provides the Family Court with a discretion to award compensation to a spouse who has done anything after separation which would have been a contribution to the marriage had the relationship not ended.

(a)A family trust owned a property in Seatoun which, prior to separation, was the family home.

(b)Mr and Mrs Meo had purchased four investment properties in Australia.3 To do so they had used equity in…

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 Meo v Meo

Details

AGLC: Meo v Meo [2021] NZHC 1601
Case: [2021] NZHC 1601
Decision Date: 30 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Meo v Meo the High Court of New Zealand considered an appeal by the appellant, Jacquenline Yasmin Rabeena Meo, of a decision of the Family Court concerning the division of relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The primary judge, Isac J, found in favour of the appellant on the first ground of appeal, that the Family Court wrongly included post-separation loan repayments by the respondent, David Anthony Meo, concerning the family home in Seatoun, Wellington. The Judge concluded that the Family Court did not have jurisdiction to find the payments made by Mr Meo to the trust amounted to contributions for which he could claim compensation under s 18B. The Judge rejected the other grounds of appeal finding that the Family Court did not make any error in its approach in the way it dealt with the retained earnings of a company owned by Mr Meo, and that the appeal on the third and fourth grounds was without merit. The Judge adjusted the equalisation payment made in the Family Court to reflect the fact that the payments made by Mr Meo to the trust were not contributions capable of engaging s 18B. The equalisation payment in the Family Court of $51,845.80 was reduced by $36,897.58 to $14,948.22. In all other respects the orders of the Family Court remained undisturbed.

Orders