district court logo

Huber v Huber [2018] NZFC 7378

Published 25 November 2022

Reserved judgment — division of relationship property — “occupation rent” — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M, 1N, 15, 18 & 18B — E v G HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1895, 18 May 2006 — C v C HC Auckland CIV-2007-419-1313, 26 June 2008 — Lawrence v Baker [2013] NZHC 2378 — Devery v Manukonga HC Auckland CIV-2003-404-5871, 21 May 2004 — Chong v Speller (2004) 24 FRNZ 273, [2005] NZFLR 400 — JA v SNA [Economic disparity] [2008] NZFLR 297 — X v X [2009] NZCA 399, [2010] 1 NZLR 601 — Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185 — Monks v Monks (2005) 25 FRNZ 36, [2006] NZFLR 161 — De Malmanche v De Malmanche [2002] 2 NZLR 838, (2002) 22 FRNZ 145 — M v B [economic disparity] [2006] 3 NZLR 660, (2006) 25 frzn 171 — Cunningham v Cunningham HC Auckland CIV-2003-404-2392, 28 November 2003. The parties sought to determine the division of their relationship property and the question of whether the respondent should pay rent for living in the former family home. They had recently dissolved their marriage after 18 years, and had three children. Two of the children were living in the care of the respondent and the other independently; they had suffered psychologically and had a strained relationship with the applicant. The Court made determinations on the value of various items of relationship property, including the former family home, a van, a coin collection, a pension fund, and various other items. Regarding the question of whether the respondent should pay rent, the Court took into consideration that he had cared for the children with no child support from the applicant; that he had maintained the family home, including paying for repairs; that the value of the family home had increased as a result; and that the applicant had had to pay for her own accommodation since the separation. All things considered, the Court found it just to not order rent or additional payments to the applicant. The coin collection was to be divided between the parties, while the parties were to retain whatever chattels were in their possession. The pension fund was found to be relationship property. The respondent was to have the option of buying the applicant out of her share in the former family home, and was to pay her the sum of $150,738.55 as her share of the interest in the former family home. Judgment Date: 15 November 2018. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *