I own a 50% share of a company which trades as a plumbing…

Hi Welcome to JustAnswer. My first response will follow shortly. Please feel free to follow up if anything is not clear

I think you are correct that the property is separate because of the trusts. However, if you do not provide these documents your partner could be compelled to do so under the Property Relationships Act, which says he must provide those documents. So it may be best to do so, even if the result is that the property is shown to be separate

44B Court may require party to disclose information about dispositions of property to trust

• 
  
  
  

  (1)In any proceedings for an order under section 25(1)(a), the court may make an order requiring a spouse or partner to disclose to the court such information as the court specifies relating to the disposition of relationship property by either or both spouses or partners to a trust since the marriage, the civil union, or the de facto relationship began.

  
  
  
  
  
  

  (2)The court may make an order under this section on the application of either party to the proceedings or on its own initiative.

  
  
  
  

I doubt the capital is relationship property. If it was settled as you describe then it would have been separate but there may need to be a more detailed analysis

The order is not against you but against your business partner, which effectively binds you of course.

You are correct in your view of how this works in my view. The shares in the company are likely to be relationship property (although that is not always certain) but the structure to keep the land out appears effective against claims. I would be hesitant to say this for certain, as I have none of the history of all of the transactions and the marriage.

It may just be the exwife being ambitious in her reach. But if the property was separated out-I assume the company pays rent, then this has probably not removed assets from relationship property because the assets never were part of the property as they were in a Trust which has built up assets presumably by repaying a mortgage and by increase in value. There have been more attcks on trusts recently and the law is by no means certain, hence my hesitancy.

44CCompensation for property disposed of to trust

• 
  
  
  

  (1)This section applies if the court is satisfied—

  
  

  
  
  • 
    

    (a)that, since the marriage, the civil union, or the de facto relationship began, either or both spouses or partners have disposed of relationship property to a trust; and

    
    
  
  

  
  

  
  
  • 
    

    (b)that the disposition has the effect of defeating the claim or rights of one of the spouses or partners; and

    
    
  
  

  
  

  
  
  • 
    

    (c)that the disposition is not one to which section 44 applies.

    
    
  
  

  
  
  
  

44FCompensation for property disposed of to qualifying company

• 
  
  
  

  (1)This section applies if the court is satisfied—

  
  

  
  
  • 
    

    (a)that, since the marriage or the civil union or the de facto relationship began, either or both spouses or partners have disposed of relationship property to a qualifying company; and

    
    
  
  

  
  

  
  
  • 
    

    (b)that the disposition has the effect of defeating the claim or rights of one of the spouses or partners; and

    
    
  
  

  
  

  
  
  • 
    

    (c)that the disposition is not one to which section 44 applies.

    
    
  
  

  
  
  
  

These 2 sections depend on an interpretation of whether property has been disposed of to a trust. Here you have paid rent (which you would have to pay for any business) but this has not diminished the value of the company shares, but is a standard overhead like opersating expenses and wages. But there is a risk when taken as a whole picture, a judge may not agree.

Many years of litigation have taught me there are no certainties!

The access to the information is pretty clear on the reading of the act, so I think there is little option on that part. But busting the trust is not going to be at all easy.

There are some cases like Ryan v Unkovich [2010] 1 NZLR 434 which discuss the tests, which are that the applicant has to show that the purpose of the transactions was to defeat a claim by the spouse. I quote "Mr Unkovich’s argument is that Ms Ryan disposed of, or directed thedisposal of, both properties to trusts in the knowledge of the proposed legislation andits application to de facto property, and with intent to pre-empt his statutory claimsand rights"