district court logo

Quinn v Quinn [2019] NZFC 10552

Published 29 September 2020

Relationship property division — application out of time — pension plan — annuities — chattels — valuation — interest — post-separation contributions — economic disparity — spousal maintenance — Family Proceedings Act 1980, ss 63, 64, 65, 69 & 70 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1, 2, 11, 15, 18, 20D, 24 & 32 — Social Security Act 2018, s 388 — C v C HC Auckland CIV-2007-419-1313, 26 June 2008 — Griffiths v Griffiths [2012] NZFLR 327 (HC) — E v G HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1985, 18 May 2006 — Scott v Williams [2018] NZLR 507 — Weir v Weir (1987) 3 FRNZ 289. The parties appeared for help in dividing their relationship property following the end of their relationship in 2013. Both parties supported the application being made out of time as there were genuine issues that required resolution. The Judge came to the closest valuation of the relationship property pool based on the available evidence. The respondent was to pay the applicant $41,137 to achieve equal sharing of the net property value. An adjustment of $8,111 was also to be paid to the applicant by way of compensation for the loss of the use of capital that was in the respondent's control following separation. Property in each party's control at the time of hearing was to vest in that party. The Judge declined to make orders for economic disparity, spousal maintenance or post-separation contributions of chattel storage. The respondent was to retain as his separate property a pension plan. He was to pay the application half of annuities until his death. This was an unusual approach as it is usually appropriate to make a "clean break" so parties do not rely on or need to contact the other. However, this arrangement suited the parties, who could effectively communicate, as it meant the respondent did not have to pay out a large lump sum and the applicant was better placed to get a mortgage with regular income from the annuities. As each party failed and succeeded on various issues the Judge left it to the parties to resolve costs, with a 35-day window left open to file submissions if that was not possible. Judgment Date: 18 December 2019.