PLSC FAM M1: Review of Relationship Property Agreement for Angela

This report analyzes a relationship property agreement between Angela Apple and Bob Banana, a de facto couple separating after eight years. The report identifies parties, properties (family home, furniture, vehicles, KiwiSaver, bank accounts, shares), and potential challenges within the agreement, such as mortgage payments, consideration for children, property categorization, and lack of violation penalties. It proposes solutions like shared mortgage responsibility, court consideration for child care costs, accurate property categorization, and inclusion of violation penalties. The analysis references relevant sections of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 to support its findings and recommendations. This student contributed assignment is available on Desklib, a platform providing study tools for students.

Running head: FAMILY LAW 1
Family Law
Student’s (Name)
Institution

FAMILY LAW 2
PARTIES IN THE AGREEMENT
The parties in agreement as to separation and relationship property are Angela Apple and
Bob Banana. Angela Apple of St Hamilton is a General Practitioner who owns 99% shares of
MD Limited, she has been married to Bob Banana a teacher of St Hamilton High School who
will be moving to St Mary’s College after two weeks. Bob and Angela the parties in this
agreement, have two children aged 6 and 4 years. They have been separated for three months due
to Bob’s engagement in relationship with St Hamilton High School principal.
ISSUES WITH THE PARTIES ENTERING THE AGREEMENT
Pursuant to section 2D that defines de facto relationship, the parties entering the
agreement have been in a de facto relationship for a period of 8 years. It is therefore eligible and
legal that the parties enter into this agreement after their separation as to the purpose of this act in
section 1C (Whitman et. al. 2019).There are no issues that might challenge the two parties into
entering this agreement due to their ages, nature of financial dependency, nature of
relationship ,the performing of household duties and the availability of children who are from
their sexual relationship (Duncan et. al. 2016). Their separation is also valid in that they both
acknowledge that they no longer stay together as a couple since they separated which is
supported by section 2D part 4 indicating how a de facto relationship ends. Some of the
documents that they both need to submit together with their agreement are general affidavit
form, assests and liabilities affidavit, information sheet and application form for order on notice.

FAMILY LAW 3
IDENTIFICATION AND CATEGORY OF PROPERTY
Some of the property owned by Angela and Bob are:
Family home: The family home that was bought by Angela at 42 Broad, St Hamilton in
her sole name is a relationship property . As defines in section 9A which is on how separate
property can become relationship property, even though the property was acquired separately it
was later mixed into the relationship which is seen when Bob payed rates, insurance, repairs and
maintenance. Bob specifically is noted have paid for the renovation of the kitchen from his
inheritance, furthermore the couple lived together in the house indicating it is a relationship
property as indicated in section 8d (ii) that defines relationship property.
Household Furniture and other effects: These items are also relationship property due to
the fact that they were purchased when the couple were living together. As per section 8c, all
items that are acquired while the couple are staying together are relationship property unless
there are exceptions as indicated in section 9. Furthermore, section 9(4) on separate property
indicates that all chattels are relationship property unless there was an agreement against such
which in this case there is none.
Vehicles and Boat: Pursuant to section 9 that categorises inheritance as separate property,
the BMW that is owned by Bob is a separate property due to the reason that it was purchased by
Bob from an inheritance. The boat purchased by Angela two years ago for family use is a
relationship property due to the following reasons: section 8b defines relationship property as
family chattels when they are acquired which is what happened in this case, section 8d further
expounds that when an item is bought for the common benefit of the spouses it is a relationship

FAMILY LAW 4
property as seen in this case, lastly the boat is a relationship property since it was bought during
de facto relationship as elaborated in 8e.
Kiwi Saver and Insurance : Article 8 g, h and I specify relationship property as life
insurance policy or any savings during the relationship as per the definition in section 2. The
saver and the insurance are relationship property due to the fact that they were acquired while
Bob and Angela were in the relationship. Other relationship property savings are Bobs Teachers
Savings Retirement Scheme .
Bobs superannuation and redundancy: Bob’s redundancy is a separate property since he
will have it after the separation while the superannuation is a relationship property as defined in
section 8i.
Bank Accounts: Angela and Bob have several accounts, the account that they own jointly
which they have been depositing 750 and 250 dollars respectively is a relationship property as
defined in section 8c and 8e. The other accounts that they own separately are separate property
since they had them before their relationship and their sources of funds are separate.
Angela’s shares: Pursuant to section 9 (4c) which defines separate property, Angela’s
shares are a separate property and so are the debts that she owes the company due to the reason
that Angela had the shares before the relationship 10 years ago.
IDENTIFICATION OF CHALLENGES
Some of the challenges in this agreement are:
In the area of mortgage payment : The agreement requires Angela to pay the mortgage
alone for a house that they both lived in and shared ownership over for the period that they lived

FAMILY LAW 5
in it, if the house is a relationship property why then does she have to struggle with mortgage in
which they both lived in together with their children (Miles, 2016).
In the area of considering the children: The agreement does not consider how and who
will take care of the children which should help in determining the amount of savings or property
that will be used to the effect of taking care of the children until they are of age.
In the area of categorizing property: The agreement wrongly categorizes some items such
as the boat purchased by Angela to be separate property and the BMW purchased by Bob to be a
relationship property.
In the area of violation: The agreement does not specify the penalties in case any of the
parties has defiled the agreement (Wilson, 2017).
SOLUTIONS TO THE CHALLENGES
The solutions to these problems are :
Both Angela and Bob should be responsible for paying the mortgage from the money that
will be acquired after the house is sold since the agreement states that the house is to be sold
(Duncan et. al. 2018).
Secondly the court should consider who and how the children will be taken of financially
in order to determine how the assets will be shared (Berkman,2017) this is accordance with
section 13 that allows the court to have exception to the equal sharing.
The agreement should look keenly at the categories of properties to avoid other conflicts
in the near future, in addition it should state the penalties for any of the partners that will violate
any of the crimes (Devaney, 2016).

FAMILY LAW 6
References
Berkman, S. (2017). Children in Relationship Property Proceedings.
Devaney, E. (2016). How Can the Property (Relationships) Act Be 'Trusted'? An Analysis of
Trust Law and Its Interface with Relationship Property.
Duncan, W. D., Christensen, S. A., Dixon, W. M., Window, M., & Rivera, R. (2016). Issues
Paper 1-Property Law Act 1974–Sales of land and other related provisions.
Duncan, W. D., Dixon, W. M., Christensen, S. A., Rivera, R., Partridge, T., & Window, M.
(2018). Property Law Review-Final Report-Property Law Act 1974 (Qld).
Miles, J. (2016). Responsibility in family finance and property law. In Regulating Family
Responsibilities (pp. 109-134). Routledge.
Parkinson, P. (2016). Constitutional Law and the Limits of Discretion in Family Property
Law. Federal Law Review, 44(1), 49-75.
Whitman, D. A., Burkhart, A. M., Freyermuth, R. W., & Rule, T. A. (2019). Law of Property.
West Academic Publishing.
Wilson, M. (2017). Policy and Law in the Development of Relationship Property Legislation in
New Zealand. Otago L. Rev., 15, 89.