Legal Research
Cases
Young v Young

Young v Young

Case [2020] NZHC 3054 19 November 2020

Resulting Trust

Equitable Interest

Contribution to Purchase Price

Joint Tenancy

Property 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-2019-404-1079

[2020] NZHC 3054

UNDER the Property Law Act 2007

BETWEEN

ELLA VICTORIA YOUNG

Plaintiff

AND

SHANE MATIU YOUNG

First Defendant

JINA KIM

Second Defendant

CIV-2019-404-2029

UNDER

the Property (Relationships) Act 1976

BETWEEN

JINA KIM

Plaintiff

AND

SHANE MATIU YOUNG

First Defendant

ELLA VICTORIA YOUNG

Second Defendant

Hearing: 6 and 7 October 2020

Appearances:

R G Evans for Ella Young

B N Snedden for Shane Young A G Rowe for Jina Kim

Judgment:

19 November 2020

JUDGMENT OF GORDON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 November 2020 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

YOUNG v YOUNG [2020] NZHC 3054 [19 November 2020]

Introduction

[1] There are two separate, but related, proceedings before the Court. The issue at the heart of the case is whether a son, who is a registered proprietor of a residential property along with his mother, has a beneficial interest in that property.

[2] The plaintiff in proceeding CIV-2019-404-1079 (the property proceeding) Ella Young, lives at 85 Mead Street, Avondale, Auckland (the property). The title to the property records Mrs Young and her son, Shane Young (Shane)1 as the registered owners of the property. They are joint tenants. It is Mrs Young’s position that she is the beneficial owner of all of the property. She says that the half-interest registered in Shane’s name is held by him on a resulting trust for her.

[3] She seeks an order under s 339(1)(b) of the Property Law Act 2007 (PLA) vesting the entire property in her.

[4] Mrs Young also seeks an order under s 142 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 for removal of the Notice of Claim registered by Jina Kim, the second defendant, against the property.

[5]Shane supports his mother’s case.

[6] Ms Kim is Shane’s former wife. Her position is that Shane is both the legal and beneficial owner of a half-share in the property.

[7] The proceeding in CIV-2019-404-2029 is brought by Ms Kim under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) (the relationship property proceeding). It was transferred to this Court from the Family Court. Ms Kim claims that Shane’s half-share in the property is relationship property and should be divided equally between the two of them. Mrs Young and Shane defend that proceeding.

1 I will use Shane Young’s Christian name rather than referring to him as Mr Young to avoid any confusion with his father, Ronald Young, who is also mentioned in the judgment.

Background

Property purchases

[8] Mrs Young is now aged 80. She is a widow. She married her late husband, Ronald Young (Ronald), in 1958. Shane, the only child of the marriage, was born in 1973.

[9] Mrs Young and Ronald bought their first home at 54 Burnley Terrace, Mt Eden, Auckland (Burnley Terrace) in 1974 with their savings from paid employment and with the assistance of mortgage funding.…

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 Young v Young

Details

AGLC: Young v Young [2020] NZHC 3054
Case: [2020] NZHC 3054
Decision Date: 19 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Young v Young presented two related proceedings, one under the Property Law Act 2007 and the other under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The central issue was whether Shane Young held a beneficial interest in a residential property jointly owned with his mother, Ella Young. The mother asserted sole beneficial ownership, while Shane's former wife, Jina Kim, claimed a half-share in the property. The legal issues involved determining whether Shane's interest was held on a resulting trust for his mother and, if not, how his interest should be divided. The court considered evidence of the intention at the time of property acquisition, including financial contributions and Shane's assumption of mortgage liability. The court concluded that Shane's interest was held on a resulting trust for his mother, leading to an order vesting the entire property in Ella Young's name and removing Jina Kim's Notice of Claim. Regarding the relationship property proceeding, the court found no extraordinary circumstances to warrant unequal sharing of the property. Consequently, the court ordered that the property be divided equally between Shane and Jina Kim.

Orders