Property act a ‘disincentive’

Press, 27 September 1978, Page 3

Property act a ‘disincentive’

More couples would draw up their own matrimonial settlements to escape the provisions of the Matrimonial Property Act, a Christchurch barrister, Mr A. A. P. Willy, told the national conference of the Institute of Credit and Financial Management yesterday.

He also said that more couples were opting out of marriage who a few years ago would have “soldiered on.” The Domestic Purposes Benefit was an added incentive to marriage breakups. The act and the benefit combined did not make marriage a particularly attractive prospect for young pen sons.

Mr Willy said he was “constantly surprised” at the sorts of persons now becoming involved in matrimonialproperty disputes.

“There are people coming in to lawyers’ offices today who would not have come in before this act was passed,” he said.

For example, matrimonialproperty disputes affecting

farms had not been very common before the passage of the act but were now becoming common. This would increasingly affect the viability of farms. Mr Willy said he expected to see a revival of contractual property agreements between spouses, distasteful as this might be to young “starry-eyed” couples. Solicitors had a duty to advise young couples of this option.

Parents could no longer safely bequeath a share in a business to a son or daughter about to marry. It would almost certainly become matrimonial property. The act was based on the assumption that husbands and wives contributed equally to a marriage partnership but this was demonstrable nonsense.

“Marriages only come before the courts because someone has not been pulling his weight,” said Mr Willy.

The act had not staunched the flow of matrimonial-pro-perty disputes: the volume showed signs of increasing.