Legal Research
Cases
Stephens v Deans

Stephens v Deans

Case [2024] NZHC 1442 31 May 2024

Contributions After Separation

Clean Break Principle

Family Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-000961

[2024] NZHC 1442

IN THE MATTER of an appeal against the decision of the Family Court pursuant to s 39 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

STEPHENS

Appellant

AND

DEANS

Respondent

Hearing: 23 May 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person

S T Bennett for Respondent

Judgment:

31 May 2024

Reissued:

4 September 2024

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was reissued by me on 4 September 2024 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

.…………………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Presland & Co, Auckland

Copy to:
The appellant

STEPHENS v DEANS [2024] NZHC 1442 [31 May 2024]

Contents

Para No

Legal context[6]

Decision under appeal[13]

Law on appeal[24]

Submissions[27]

Ms Stephens’ submissions[27]

Mr Deans’ submissions[33]

Leave to adduce new evidence [36]

Discussion[40]

Section 13 — extraordinary circumstances?[40]

$136,440 loan[74]

Section 18B — contributions after the relationship [81]

Overview[81]

Assessment of compensation for childcare under s 18B[84]

Occupation rent and costs relating to the property[86]

Orders as to vesting under s 26, s 26A and s 33(3)(d) [99]

Compensation under s 20E[105]

Balance relationship property[106]

Result[109]

[1] Ms Stephens and Mr Deans were in a relationship between 2005 and March 2013.1 They married in 2006. Together they have one child, born in 2011. Mr Deans brought proceedings for division of their relationship property in 2019. The application was heard by Judge R von Keisenberg in the Family Court at Auckland on 8 and 9 December 2022. This included the Judge hearing cross-examination of the parties.

[2] The main item for division was the family home in Oratia. This was purchased by the parties in 2010 from Ms Stephens’ father’s family trust (the Trust) for $360,000 after Ms Stephens’ father had died. The purchase price was based on the property’s council valuation. It was comprised of a $136,440 loan from the Trust and borrowings of $235,000 from the National Bank which was guaranteed by the trustees of the Trust.2

[3] The parties renovated the home with funds drawn down on the mortgage. Ms Stephens says that in December 2012 Mr Deans used funds drawn down on the mortgage for his personal drug use. She also says he was concealing use of other funds withdrawn through Eftpos transactions and in cash for that same purpose.

[4] After they separated, Ms Stephens remained in the home with the parties’ child. She paid all mortgage, rates, insurance and maintenance expenses from that point in time, and had full care of their child. Mr Deans had bought a car in August 2012 funded in part by a further draw down on the mortgage and in part by a trade in of Ms Stephens’ father’s car. Mr Deans took the car with him on separation.

[5] By decision dated 18 April 2023, the Judge made various orders as to the distribution of relationship property.3 Ms Stephens appeals the Judge’s decision. Mr Deans cross-appeals. Mr…

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 Stephens v Deans

Details

AGLC: Stephens v Deans [2024] NZHC 1442
Case: [2024] NZHC 1442
Decision Date: 31 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stephens v Deans, the High Court of New Zealand reviewed a decision made by the Family Court concerning the division of relationship property between the parties, Ms Stephens and Mr Deans. The primary issues included whether extraordinary circumstances justified a deviation from equal sharing, the validity of a loan from a family trust as relationship debt, and compensation for contributions made by the parties post-separation. The Judge’s decision was largely upheld, with some modifications. Ms Stephens appealed, arguing that the Family Court had not properly considered several factors, including the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the family home, alleged misconduct by Mr Deans, and the impact of her post-separation contributions. Mr Deans cross-appealed, challenging specific findings regarding the loan from the trust and the calculation of occupation rent. The High Court found that while the Family Court did not err in its application of the law, there were some miscalculations and omissions that warranted adjustments. The appeal was allowed in part, resulting in a revised division of the relationship property, with specific adjustments made to the calculation of occupation rent and the value of the parties’ motor vehicle. The cross-appeal was dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of considering the unique circumstances of each case while adhering to statutory guidelines.

Orders