Interim spousal maintenance — relationship property dispute — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 82 — Tsoi v Hua [2006] NZFLR 560 (HC) — M v M FC North Shore FAM-2006-044-2830, 20 March 2008 — L v R FC Auckland FAM-2007-004-1465, 30 September 2008 — Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 — K v K HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-4421, 20 November 2009 — B v B [2008] NZFLR 789 (HC) — Z v Z (No 2) [1997] NZFLR 241 — A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees) [2001] FLR 377 — C v G [2010] NZCA 128; [2010] NZFLR 497. The applicant sought interim spousal maintenance pending final resolution of the parties' relationship property dispute. Following the end of their 17 year relationship, the respondent retained occupation of the family home (after preventing its sale at the last minute) while the applicant was renting and caring for the parties' children. Under s 82 of the Family Proceedings Act (the Act) the Court has an unfettered discretion as to whether an award should be made and as to quantum. The main considerations are: the reasonable needs of the applicant over the period for which the order would subsist; the means available to the applicant to meet those needs; the respondent’s reasonable means to meet any shortfall and his reasonable needs; the ability of the respondent to be able to meet the reasonable needs of the applicant; and whether the court ought to exercise its discretion to make an interim order and, if so, for how long and on what conditions. The applicant provided her budget which had a shortfall of $236.60 per week (the Judge rounded this up to $237). The budget was reasonable. The respondent argued he could not afford to pay maintenance but the Judge rejected this claim as he paid off over $24,000 of an overdraft account and continued to pay his legal fees, which did not need to be prioritised over supporting his former partner and children. The respondent was ordered to pay $237 per week in spousal maintenance for the next six months. He was also ordered to pay legal fees of $9000, either in a lump sum or in $1500 instalments. Judgment Date: 10 December 2019. suppressed. Judgment Date Moore v Gallagher [2019] NZFC 9559 Interim spousal maintenance — relationship property dispute — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 82 — Tsoi v Hua [2006] NZFLR 560 (HC) — M v M FC North Shore FAM-2006-044-2830, 20 March 2008 — L v R FC Auckland FAM-2007-004-1465, 30 September 2008 — Ropiha v Ropiha [1979] 2 NZLR 245 — K v K HC Auckland CIV-2009-404-4421, 20 November 2009 — B v B [2008] NZFLR 789 (HC) — Z v Z (No 2) [1997] NZFLR 241 — A v A (Maintenance Pending Suit: Provision for Legal Fees) [2001] FLR 377 — C v G [2010] NZCA 128; [2010] NZFLR 497. The applicant sought interim spousal maintenance pending final resolution of the parties' relationship property dispute. Following the end of their 17 year relationship, the respondent retained occupation of the family home (after preventing its sale at the last minute) while the applicant was renting and caring for the parties' children. Under s 82 of the Family Proceedings Act (the Act) the Court has an unfettered discretion as to whether an award should be made and as to quantum. The main considerations are: the reasonable needs of the applicant over the period for which the order would subsist; the means available to the applicant to meet those needs; the respondent’s reasonable means to meet any shortfall and his reasonable needs; the ability of the respondent to be able to meet the reasonable needs of the applicant; and whether the court ought to exercise its discretion to make an interim order and, if so, for how long and on what conditions. The applicant provided her budget which had a shortfall of $236.60 per week (the Judge rounded this up to $237). The budget was reasonable. The respondent argued he could not afford to pay maintenance but the Judge rejected this claim as he paid off over $24,000 of an overdraft account and continued to pay his legal fees, which did not need to be prioritised over supporting his former partner and children. The respondent was ordered to pay $237 per week in spousal maintenance for the next six months. He was also ordered to pay legal fees of $9000, either in a lump sum or in $1500 instalments. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *