Wood v Arthur - [2017] NZHC 1745

NOTE: PURSUANT TO S 35A OF THE PROPERTY (RELATIONSHIPS) ACT 1976, ANY REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING MUST COMPLY WITH SS 11B TO 11D OF THE FAMILY COURTS ACT 1980. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE SEE
THE-FAMILY-COURT/LEGISLATION/RESTRICTION-ON-PUBLISHING- JUDGMENTS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2017-419-61 [2017] NZHC 1745

IN THE MATTER of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

DEAN ROBERT WOOD Appellant

AND

LINDA RAYLENE ARTHUR Respondent

Hearing: 14 July 2017

Appearances:

S Chatwin for the Appellant
M Vickerman and J Hunter for the Respondent

Judgment:

26 July 2017

INTERIM JUDGMENT OF MUIR J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 26 July 2017 at 2.30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High court Rules.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:…………………………

Counsel/Solicitors:
S Chatwin, Chatwin Legal Limited, Hamilton
M Vickerman, Barrister, Auckland
J Hunter, Solicitor, Thames

WOOD v ARTHUR [2017] NZHC 1745 [26 July 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Wood appeals from a decision of Judge Coyle in the Family Court dated 9

March 20171 in which orders as to the division of relationship property and a minor variation to an earlier order of spousal maintenance were made.

[2] Prior to the hearing of the appeal a number of issues were resolved between the parties and there is no dispute between them in terms of the dollar sums attributable to those issues which remain unresolved.

Background

[3] Mr Wood and the respondent Ms Arthur were in a relationship from 1984 until they separated on 11 January 2013. During their relationship they established a dairy farming partnership trading under the name DR Wood and LR Arthur Farming Partnership and in which they held equal interests. Among other assets, it owned a dairy farm at Owera Road, Te Rerenga, just north of Whitianga, which was purchased in 1998.

[4] Mr Wood and Ms Arthur agreed to dissolve the partnership effective 31 May

2016 and to value the assets and liabilities as at that date for the purposes of a relationship property division. Apart from domestic chattels of relatively low value, motor vehicles and a life insurance policy on the life of Mr Wood, all the relationship property of the parties was owned by the partnership.

[5] From the date of separation routine weekly payments were made to Ms Arthur from the partnership account or an account subsequently established by Mr Wood and into which partnership income was paid. For the period from 11 January
2013 to 6 May 2013 the amount paid was $700 per week. For the period from

6 May 2013 to 31 March 2015 the amount was $800. Thereafter Mr Wood unilaterally reduced the payment to $500.

[6] For the period from 11 January 2013 to 6 May 2013 Ms Arthur remained resident in the family home albeit estranged from Mr Wood. Thereafter she established her own residence.

[7] On 3 September 2015 the same Judge from whose decision the present appeal is brought made spousal maintenance orders in favour of Ms Arthur.2 He determined that her reasonable needs 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 Wood v Arthur

Details

AGLC: Wood v Arthur [2017] NZHC 1745
Case: [2017] NZHC 1745
Decision Date: 26 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal from a decision of the Family Court concerning the division of relationship property and spousal maintenance between Dean Robert Wood and Linda Raylene Arthur. The principal issues were the characterisation of certain payments made by Mr Wood to Ms Arthur post-separation, the valuation of additional benefits received by Mr Wood from the partnership, and the entitlement to spousal maintenance post-dissolution of the partnership. The High Court found that the payment of $35,051 made in response to threatened enforcement of spousal maintenance orders should be regarded as a drawing by Mr Wood to meet a personal liability. The Court also held that the lease payment for the trust land should be regarded as a normal business outgoing of the partnership. Regarding spousal maintenance, the Court found that the maintenance order should continue until Ms Arthur received her full settlement, but it should be abated from 6 April 2017 in accordance with a prorated formula. The Court declined to award interest on the relationship property award. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated, and the case was returned to the Family Court for finalisation.

Orders