Marriage property act clause a ‘raw deal’

Press, 3 August 1985, Page 16

Marriage property act clause a ‘raw deal’

PA Wellington An “irregularity” in the Matrimonial Property Act means that people married before December, 1980, could get a raw deal if they divorce, says a matrimonial property rights campaigner, Mr Tony Reid. Frustrated by a Court of Appeal dismissal this week of his attempt to have certain words in the Matrimonial Property Act, 1976, defined, Mr Reid has written to the Attorney-General, Mr Palmer, to reiterate his view that the law has been “bungled.” “What this judgment means is that any person married before December 16, 1980, who traded any property would receive the new form of property as matrimonial property,” Mr Reid said.

He gave a practical example of an Inherited farm.

This belonged to the individual who inherited it and could not be split up between husband and wife in the event of divorce. If the farm was sold for another, however, the second farm would become matrimonial property and could be split between husband and wife if they divorced.

This irregularity was recognised in an amendment to the act on December 16, 1980. “The effect of this was simply that any property traded as from that date did not change its status from separate to matrimonial property,” Mr Reid said. The injustice as he saw it was that the amendment was not made retrospective “to the extent that it corrected the damage that had already been done by the original act,” he said.

Mr R eid told Mr Palmer by letter that as AttorneyGeneral and Minister of Justice he owed “every married man and woman in this country an explanation as to why this incredible situation has been allowed to develop.”

Mr Reid has been campaigning for changes to matrimonial property rights for almost eight years. When his first marriage broke up he claimed his wife was not entitled to money he made from selling shares in his business.

The money was his because the business was his separate property and was begun before he was married, he said. The case found its way to the Privy Council where Mr Reid was defeated, his former wife taking 40 per cent of the proceeds from the sale of the shares.