Legal Research
Cases
Swenson v Lawton

Swenson v Lawton

Case [2022] NZHC 3544 19 December 2022

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

Breach of Contract

Jurisdiction

Compensatory Damages

Family Protection Act

Family Law

Property Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2021-454-10

[2022] NZHC 3544

IN THE MATTER of the Estate of TRUDY ANNE LAWTON

UNDER

the enforcement of a section 21A Property (Relationships) Act 1976 agreement

BETWEEN

KAREN IVY SWENSON AND ANTHONY HARVEY SWENSON

Plaintiffs

AND

GRANT MATTHEW LAWTON

Defendant

CIV-2021-454-35

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of TRUDY ANNE LAWTON

UNDER

the Family Protection Act 1955

BETWEEN

GRANT MATTHEW LAWTON

Plaintiff

AND

KAREN IVY SWENSON AND ANTHONY HARVEY SWENSON

Defendants

CIV-2021-454-42

IN THE MATTER

of the Estate of TRUDY ANNE LAWTON

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

GRANT MATTHEW LAWTON

Plaintiff

AND

KAREN IVY SWENSON AND ANTHONY HARVEY SWENSON

Defendants

SWENSON & SWENSON v LAWTON & ORS [2022] NZHC 3544 [19 December 2022]

Hearing: 5-6 July 2022

Counsel:

G A Paine for Mr Grant Lawton

G P Mason for the Executors of the Estate of Trudy Lawton

Judgment:

19 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1] In late 2002, Ms Trudy Lawton suffered a serious stroke and was diagnosed with Moyamoya disease, a rare condition affecting blood vessels in the brain. She was told that she would not live long. For the next 15 years Trudy was supported, cared for and loved by her husband, Mr Grant Lawton, until they agreed to separate. In 2018, Trudy and Grant entered into an agreement under s 21A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 in which they divided their relationship property (the agreement). Among other things, the agreement provided that if Trudy died within 10 years, Grant would pay half of the proceeds of Trudy’s life insurance policy to her estate.

[2] Trudy passed away less than two years later and Grant received $431,250 under the life insurance policy. He subsequently refused demands by the executors of Trudy’s estate—her sister and brother-in-law—for half of the proceeds. In these related proceedings, Grant now seeks to have the agreement set aside under s 21J of the Property (Relationships) Act. He also seeks maintenance from Trudy’s estate under the Family Protection Act 1955. In response, the executors seek to enforce the agreement. Alternatively, if the agreement is set aside, they seek a fresh division of the relationship property taking into account capital gains Grant has made since the relationship property was divided.

[3]Two broad issues require determination:

(a)First, whether the agreement should be set aside under s 21J of the Property (Relationships) Act on the basis that giving effect to it would

cause serious injustice. If not, the executors are entitled to judgment against Grant for half of Trudy’s life insurance proceeds.

(b)Second, whether any provision for Mr Lawton ought to be made from Trudy’s estate under the Family Protection Act.

Background

[4] Grant and Trudy met in 1994 and soon began a relationship. They were married in 2000, and lived together with Grant’s three children from a previous relationship.

[5] In mid-2000, Trudy took out an insurance policy over her life. That was…

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 Swenson v Lawton

Details

AGLC: Swenson v Lawton [2022] NZHC 3544
Case: [2022] NZHC 3544
Decision Date: 19 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grant Lawton and Trudy Lawton were married and separated in 2017. In 2018, they entered into an agreement under section 21A of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, dividing their relationship property. The agreement provided that if Trudy died within 10 years, Grant would pay half of the proceeds of her life insurance policy to her estate. Trudy passed away in 2020, and Grant refused to pay the amount stipulated in the agreement. The executors of Trudy's estate sought to enforce the agreement, while Grant sought to have the agreement set aside and for maintenance from Trudy's estate under the Family Protection Act 1955.

The court had to decide whether the agreement should be set aside under section 21J of the Property (Relationships) Act and if any provision for Grant should be made from Trudy's estate under the Family Protection Act. The court found that the agreement did not cause serious injustice and that Grant did not have a continuing moral obligation to provide for Trudy under the Family Protection Act. The court dismissed Grant's claim to set aside the agreement and his claim under the Family Protection Act. Judgment was entered against Grant for half of the insurance proceeds and interest, as well as the executors' reasonable solicitor-client costs.

Orders