Picard v Martin - [2020] NZHC 1206

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 ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CIV-2019-463-000106

[2020] NZHC 1206

BETWEEN
CHYNELLE TUI FRANCIS PICARD

Appellant

AND

ALEC ROBERT MARTIN

First Respondent

ANNABELLA TANYA MARTIN

Second Respondent

Hearing: 13 May 2020

Appearances:

J Hosking for Appellant A R Martin in person

K Patterson for Second Respondent

Judgment:

3 June 2020

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday, 3 June 2020 at 3:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: The Law Shop, Rotorua (S Northey) for the Appellant Counsel: J Hosking for the Appellant
K J Patterson, Tauranga, for the Second Respondent Copy to: A R Martin (First Respondent)

PICARD v MARTIN & ANOR [2020] NZHC 1206 [3 June 2020]

[1] Ms Chynelle Picard appeals a judgment of Judge S J Coyle delivered on 17 October 2019 in relation to the division of relationship property and constructive trust issues.1 Mr Alec Martin cross-appeals.

[2] In the Family Court, the principal issues that required determination related to a rental property and the home in which Ms Picard and Mr Martin lived for the five years immediately prior to their separation. In particular, the issues were:

(a)Whether the sum of $50,000 utilised by Ms Picard and Mr Martin towards the purchase of the rental property was a loan or a gift from Mr Martin’s father, Mr Robert Martin.

(b)Whether Ms Picard and Mr Martin had an equitable interest in the home in which they had lived, which is now owned by Mr Martin’s mother, Mrs Annabella Martin. Principally, Ms Picard asserted that she and Mr Martin had an equitable interest in the home by virtue of a constructive trust.

[3] There were also some minor issues relating to other property such as shareholdings, bank accounts and cars. Ms Picard says Judge Coyle was wrong to find against her on the two principal issues. She also challenges the Judge’s findings on some of the minor issues. Mr Martin cross-appeals on the basis that the Judge overlooked dealing with other minor issues.

Principles governing this appeal

[4] This is a general appeal. I therefore apply the principles articulated by the Supreme Court in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar:2

(a)I must make my own assessment of the merits of the parties’ cases;

(b)The appellant bears the onus of satisfying me I should differ from Judge Coyle’s conclusions;

1 Martin v Picard [2019] NZFC 6259.
2 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, [2008] 2 NZLR 141.

(c)I am justified in interfering with Judge Coyle’s judgment only if I consider his judgment was wrong;

(d)If my view is different from the conclusions…

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 Picard v Martin

Details

AGLC: Picard v Martin [2020] NZHC 1206
Case: [2020] NZHC 1206
Decision Date: 3 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chynelle Picard appealed against a decision of the Family Court that found that she and Alec Martin did not have an equitable interest in two properties. The first property was a rental property which had been purchased with the aid of a loan from Mr Martin’s father, Robert Martin. The second property was a house which had been moved onto a property owned by Robert Martin’s company, Northdale Holdings Ltd. The appeal related to the valuation of the properties and the interest of the appellant in the house. The High Court allowed the appeal in part. The sum of $50,000 provided by Robert Martin to enable Chynelle and Alec to purchase the rental property was a loan rather than a gift. The Court found that the appellant and Alec had a 50 per cent interest in the house and curtilage at 628 Paradise Valley Road by virtue of a constructive trust. This interest was valued at half the value of the improvements to the property, being $112,000. The Court also found that Chynelle was entitled to occupation rent under s 18B of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, being half the increase in value of the property, being $42,000.

Orders