Now, her claim for $29,000 in the Disputes Tribunal has been partially upheld, with an order he return just under $24,000.
Tribunal referee Shelley Munro said the evidence supported Nicola’s claim that the money would be repaid if the relationship ended.
‘Large sum’ of money transferred
According to a recently released decision, the couple were in a brief relationship from late 2023 until March 2024.
Ken was completing significant renovations to his property when the relationship began, Munro said in the tribunal decision.
Nicola had recently received a payout from a previous relationship property settlement.
She transferred “large sums of money” to Ken and paid for renovation items based on what she described as an agreement between them that he would repay the amounts if the relationship did not work out.
If it did, she could live rent-free in the house with her children.
Between October 2023 and February 2024, a “significant number of transactions were made”, including payments on Nicola’s credit card for items at two hardware stores.
Munro said these were consistent with products for building, including the purchase of a $3000 oven.
Ken said Nicola did not have to buy it, but chose to do so. He also said Nicola decided to buy the oven for when she and her children moved in.
“This, of course, did not happen,” Munro said.
Ken also spent nearly $2000 of Nicola’s money on a navigation system for his boat and a further $3496 on servicing the boat and installing the system.
He claimed it was an “early Christmas present”, which he neither asked for nor agreed to repay.
Nicola said she would never spend so much on a Christmas present.
Munro said over the same period there were 15 separate bank transfers to Ken, ranging from $100 to $5000, totalling $11,693 and 18 credit card transactions Nicola claimed were for items she paid on behalf of Ken and he was to reimburse her under the loan agreement.
Munro had to assess the terms of the alleged loan agreement.
If it was a loan, she had to determine whether it had been breached by not being repaid and, if so, the amount of any proven loss.
Dispute over agreement to repay money
Ken disputed that there was any agreement requiring him to repay the money.
He said Nicola had received the money from her settlement and was “spending constantly”.
Ken said he never asked her to pay for things or transfer money to him and therefore it was not a loan.
He said he often bought her things like “lunch and smokes”, and she would transfer money to him.
Ken also claimed he looked after her children while she worked and that the money she gave him helped pay for groceries and the “many holidays” when they went jetboating.
Nicola disagreed.
She said her children attended school and preschool and did not need looking after. She submitted bank statements showing the money she spent on holidays and boating with Ken which she was not seeking to recover.
Nicola stated that the terms of the agreement were clear.
Munro said based on the large number of transactions she did not accept Ken’s evidence that she “just did it and sometimes he didn’t know”.
“Having considered the evidence, I accept that there was an agreement for [Nicola] to advance money to [Ken] and that this would be repaid if the relationship ended,” Munro said.
She noted the relationship was only a few months old when the large payments were made.
“It makes no sense to suggest [Nicola] would do this or buy him such large items for the house,” Munro said.
Nor did Munro accept Ken’s explanation that he “did not know” Nicola was making the direct bank transfers, or that some of them were repayments for smokes, milk, childcare or contributions to groceries and holidays.
A woman used settlement money from a previous relationship to support her new partner’s home renovation project. When that relationship ended the Disputes Tribunal ordered him to pay most of it back. Photo / 123rf
She found the transfers were advances made directly to Ken by way of a loan he had requested and which were subsequently documented to calculate what was owing.
Regarding the credit card payments, Munro found some related to the installation of products in Ken’s home were proven, but she was not satisfied that others fell within the loan agreement.
Nor was it clear those items were specifically for Ken.
Nicola’s claim also included $3500 for mileage on a vehicle Ken borrowed from her, but that part of the claim was dismissed.
Munro said there was insufficient evidence to show the date when Ken started using the vehicle.
She said the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim because it concerned a contract rather than a claim under the Property Relationships Act.
“That is because of the very brief relationship and the fact that the claim is one in contract – that the parties entered into an agreement for money to be loaned with the intention of repayment,” she said.
*Names have been anonymised in keeping with Disputes Tribunal rules around name suppression.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.