Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

May be taken further

Legislation relating to matrimonial property may be taken a stage further this year. ■ Ruth Richardson, who is legal adviser to Federated Farmers, told farmers and their wives at a field day on Banks Peninsula last week that she hoped legislation would be seen this year dealing with the division of matrimonial property on the death of partners in a marriage. In the case of a 50-50 share at that stage, she said it would be essential that estate duties were done away with as between spouses. The 1976 Matrimonial Property Act lays down the rules that apply to any division of matrimonial property during the life time of a couple when

a breakdown occurs in a marriage. The basic rule is that the property should be shared equally. In farming cases that had been before the courts she said that the courts had bent over backwards to do justice to the business asset —to retain the farming business in being. What had been seen in such cases had been a cash payment to the party leaving the property for half the value of the home, with the remaining part of this party’s share being in the form of a long-term mortgage or payment. In only one case did she think had a court ordered that the farm be sold up. As far as stable marriages were concerned, Ruth Richardson said that the present act had no direct impact, but because of the

potential interest that a partner could have he or she could take steps to protect that interest by lodging a caveat against a title, so that an asset could not be dealt with in any way without that party also being consulted. Both partners could also use an asset, which was matrimonial property, as a : means of raising credit. Marriage partners did have the ability to contract out of the legislation I by making a separate agreement under which I they could do anything I with their property. However in this case the parties had to have ; separate lawyers and these lawyers had to explain to their clients what the impact of the agreement was on them.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19780407.2.76

Bibliographic details

Press, 7 April 1978, Page 8

Word Count
363

May be taken further Press, 7 April 1978, Page 8

May be taken further Press, 7 April 1978, Page 8