For clients who have significant trusts, own businesses or multiple properties in New Zealand and/or overseas, there can be additional challenges and complications regarding relationship property.
The law on relationship property is determined under the Property Relationship Act. Sometimes if the relationship has lasted less than three years, equal sharing may still apply if that would be considered just. For example, where there are children or one partner has made a substantial contribution to the relationship.
Some property is deemed separate property not relationship property and therefore is not shared between the parties. Superannuation, inheritances and debts may fall in to this category.
For clients who have trusts, own businesses or property in New Zealand or overseas, there can be additional challenges and complications. As a specialist family lawyer, Jeremy Sutton routinely deals with these sorts of cases.
For the past 20 years Jeremy Sutton has specialised in high net worth, financially complex divorce cases. He knows what works to get the job done assiduously, fairly and quickly and how to protect you and your significant assets through divorce.
For more information on relationship property, request a consultation.
Section 21F of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“Act”) sets out a list of requirements with which an agreement must comply in order for it to be valid under the Act. We would be happy to discuss these requirements with you further and prepare an agreement on the basis of the agreement reached between you and your husband, bearing in mind that your husband will need to obtain independent legal advice from another lawyer.
The Ministry of Justice does not specify who is required to pay the filing fee. However, generally the Applicant is responsible for meeting these costs as it is their application that the Court is determining. Clients in receipt of legal aid can apply to the Ministry of Justice for these costs to be waived.
The Family Court generally does not like including the playing of such calls as evidence, and such evidence may not be admitted in Court.
There is a danger that such recordings can become obsessive and hinder the normal conversation in activities between the parties. It is somewhat artificial in that the party recording the conversation knows of such existence, and the party that is being recorded has no such knowledge normally.
It is often easier in the case of emails and text messages to have these items as evidence. In such cases, it is much easier to obtain the transcript of entire conversations and exchanges to see the context that they have been held in. However, in the situation of a single phone call this may not truly reflect the complete situation of the parties.
I would be cautious and generally not encourage a client to record phone calls or to use such phone calls into evidence.