Polyamorous trio ruled a family

A man and two women who were in a polyamorous relationship will have their battle over a $2 million property heard in the Family Court.

The Auckland trio lived at the property in Kumeu¯ for 15 years.

After their relationship ended, they turned to the Family Court to determine how the property, which was jointly owned, should be divided.

However, the Family Court said it did not have the jurisdiction to determine the matter, as the Property (Relationships) Act did not apply to relationships of more than two people.

However, the Court of Appeal has now overturned that ruling.

It said the Family Court could determine claims regarding polyamorous relationships in the same way it determined claims from those who were married, in a civil union, or in a de facto relationship.

Lilach and Brett Paul married in February 1998. The following year, Lilach met Fiona Mead and in 2002, the three formed a polyamorous relationship.

In November of that year, the trio moved into a four-hectare property in Kumeu¯ in Auckland’s northwest. The farm was purchased in Mead’s name for $533,000.

In 2017, it had a QV of $2.175 million. For the next 15 years, the trio lived together at the farm.

Throughout the relationship, Mead worked as a vet and Brett Paul estab

Court of Appeal

lished a paintball business on the property.

The Pauls also had a lawn mowing business.

Soon after the trio moved into the property, they had a ceremony where the Pauls gave a ring to Mead.

In November 2017, Lilach Paul separated from her husband and Mead, and the following year Brett Paul and Mead separated. Mead still lives at the

Kumeu¯ property.

In February 2019, Lilach Paul applied to the Family Court seeking a one-third share in the property due to the trio’s ‘‘committed relationship’’.

Mead objected, saying the relationship had been between three people and did not qualify as a de facto relationship.

In the recently released judgment, the Court of Appeal said the word ‘‘couple’’ in the Property (Relationships) Act might be seen as conveying a ‘‘flavour of exclusivity’’.

But there were clear contextual indications in the law’s wording that it was possible for two people to live together as amarried couple at the same time one of them was in another committed relationship, the judgment said.

The court ruled there may be multiple qualifying relationships between two people to which the Act could apply.

The Family Court could determine claims regarding polyamorous relationships.