|
SutherlandFI - RELATIONSHIP PROPERTY CASESThe Team approach is effective in resolving Relationship Property casesThe Team - You, your lawyer and Hugh SutherlandThe following Teams faced challenges ... and they worked together to achieve significant financial outcomesOur client's ex claimed everything to be 100% relationship property. However, our financial tracing identified the opposite - 80% was separate property for our client. The ex claimed 100% relationship property. We proved our client funded it from separate property. The claim was reduced to the homestead only. The ex's offshore account was identified from phone records. Significant payout to our client. Client retained the business as separate property. When the financial facts were presented, the ex's claims were disproved and a court case avoided. Proved during Court testimony that the "debts" were contingent liabilities manufactured by the ex that never eventuated. Our client got her fair share. Our client's ex partner manufactured a set of financial accounts especially for our client. We uncovered this through a comparison and analysis enabling a more favourable result! Our client won a successful outcome and a favourable payment. The cost of this vexatious investigation to the other side exceeded $300,000! It was driven by their gross inexperience following advice from their advisors who generated the bulk of the cost! The ex wanted to palm the business debts off as relationship property debts while keeping the business less the debts! Fair share achieved for our client. A company, controlled by the majority shareholder, sued a minority shareholder for repayment of their shareholder's current account. Proved the accounts filed in the Court claim were dubious and that there was really no debt owed by our client. But the business owed the relationship $100,000. The ex wanted to get the business for nothing and avoid paying out the shareholder's current account to our client. For shares in a business. Showed misrepresentation and no underlying value in the business. Successful judgement in favour of our client. $45,000 Had no value due to "large" GST debts to the IRD. It's an exporter, GST does not apply to exports. A false debt - the true value recognised by the Court. Where "some"
items claimed stolen in a burglary were subsequently sold through
the business. A useful link for more information and case law is the Family Court website and Court Decisions. Email Hugh Sutherland if you would like to discuss opportunities for your case at: |
