PLSC FAM M1 A2: Relationship Property Agreement Amendments Analysis

This assignment focuses on a case study involving Angela and Bob, who are undergoing a separation and need to amend their relationship property agreement. The student, acting as a legal professional, is tasked with redrafting the agreement to reflect the new terms agreed upon by the parties. These changes include the sale of the family home, division of the proceeds, retention of specific assets by each party (such as KiwiSaver, redundancy payments, and shares), and a lump-sum payment from Angela to Bob. The assignment requires the application of relevant New Zealand property law, specifically the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, to ensure a fair and just outcome. The student needs to consider factors such as the welfare of the children, economic disadvantages, and the overall fairness of the property division, and the legal steps involved in obtaining a favorable outcome. The agreement must be amended using track changes to show suggested modifications, along with comments to explain the drafting choices. The assignment emphasizes the importance of considering the parties' preferences, priorities, and objectives, as well as gathering relevant facts and documents to support the client's case. Furthermore, alternative dispute resolution methods are also considered, such as mediation and arbitration.

1
Business Law

2
Angela and Bob decided to separate three months ago.
The Agreement is intended for full settlement of claims made by both the parties who have
disclosed the details of the assets owned by them along with the liabilities in the form of debt.
The division of the property would be in accordance with Section 11 of the Property
(Relationships) Act of 1976. It implies that there would be equal sharing between Angela and
Bob. It is to be decided by the court of competent jurisdiction as per Section 13 of the
Property (Relationships) Act of 1976 whether equal sharing would be in contravention of
justice. The equal sharing would be of the family home which is located at 42 Broad Street,
Hamilton.
The clauses of the Agreement are binding upon both Angela and Bob.
It is to be seen whether the division of the property such as the family home value after its
sale, the Kiwi saver, boat, redundancy payments and Angela’s shares in MD Limited would
be in the interests of justice or not as per Section 13 of the of the Property (Relationships) Act
of 1976 if it is not equal under Section 11 of the Property (Relationships) Act of 1976. The
burden of proof in this regard would lie upon Angela with regard to the extraordinary
circumstances such as taking care of the children. The legal steps involved in this regard are
the obtaining of a favourable order from the court of competent jurisdiction which must take
account of the facts and circumstances pertaining to the merits of the case with respect to the
sharing of the property between Bob and Angela. The decision made by the New Zealand
Court of Appeal in the case of Martin v Martin must be referred to accordingly.
The division of amount held by Angela and Bob in their joint account at Westpac Bank is to
be examined in terms of justice with regard to seventy five percent being held by Angela and
twenty five percent being held by Bob. As a result, the viability of the sharing of the amount
in such a manner would be taken into account accordingly.
The best thing in this regard Angela can do is to make an application at the Family Court in
order to conclude upon a decision with regard to the division of the property as agreed upon
in order to imply a favourable outcome.
The time limit for an application with regard to order is three years in the instances pertaining
to the ending of a de facto relationship is three years as stipulated by Section 24 of the

3
Property (Relationships) Act of 1976. Since Bob and Angela have ended their relationship
three months ago, the application to be filed in court is valid accordingly.
Section 2F of the Property (Relationships) Act of 1976 that the shares to be held in the
property are determined taking account of the date when the relationship has culminated.
As far as the welfare of the children is concerned, the court would have an important role to
play with regard to the needs of the children in accordance with Sections 26 to 28 D of the
Property (Relationships) Act of 1976. It is to be seen by the court whether Angela would be
able to take care of the children and whether the children would be benefitted accordingly.
The aspect related to the economic disadvantage of Angela would have a vital role to play as
far as unfairness in equal sharing of the property is concerned. It would be determined by the
court in accordance with Sections 15 and 15 A of the Property (Relationships) Act of 1976.
In this regard the financial condition of each of the partner also plays an extremely vital role.
The key document in this regard would be the agreement between Bob and Angela relating to
the division of property in addition to the changes made if any accordingly as far as the
mutual agreement between them is concerned. Additionally, the relevant documents
pertaining to the properties to be divided amongst Bob and Angela would also help in the
capitulation upon the claims made by Angela in an effective and efficient manner. The
income of both Angela and Bob would also be quite helpful in the determination of the
division of the property in a proper and appropriate manner as far as the aspect of fairness
under Section 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act of 1976 is concerned. Once the court
decides upon the welfare of the children under the custody of Angela, a parenting order
would be issued accordingly. Alternative forms of the resolution of disputes such as
mediation, conciliation and arbitration would also play an extremely vital role with regard to
the comprehensive solution to Angela in a timely manner as pert the relevant rules and
procedures. It would help in the avoidance of complex procedures pertaining to litigation in
courts, most notably in terms of time and costs. Additionally, the aspect related to family
counselling would also help in the resolution of the disputes if they arise between Bob and
Angela at the earliest in a proper and appropriate manner. The pros and cons of the matter are
to be briefed to Angela so that an effective decision can be made with regard to the
proceeding of her case accordingly as per her instructions. An incremental approach is to be
undertaken as it would help in the preparation for the case in an organised manner as far as
the averment of Angela is concerned with regard to the sharing of property as agreed upon

4
with her partner Bob as a result of separation. The right to livelihood and the appropriate
share in the personal property are the legal rights available to Angela as far as justice is
concerned. The aspect pertaining to custody of children would act as a factor with regard to
bargaining accordingly.