Polyamorous trio in court fight
A man and two women who were in a polyamorous relationship ended up in a court battle over a property where they lived for 15 years.
The relationship was the subject of the first judgment on polyamory and the Property (Relationships) Act, which was released yesterday.
According to the judgment, Lilach and Brett Paul married in February 1998.
The following year Lilach met Fiona Mead and in 2002 the three formed a polyamorous relationship.
Polyamory is the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved.
In November 2002, 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 15 years, the trio lived together at the farm.
For the most part they shared the same bed, the judgment said.
Throughout the relationship, Mead worked as a vet and Brett established a paintball business on the property.
The Pauls also had a lawnmowing business.
‘‘While the relationship between Lilach, Brett and Fiona was the primary relationship, there were other secondary relationships between each party and other individuals,’’ Justice Hinton said. Some of those relationships formed a secondary polyamorous relationship.
‘‘We had an understanding that although we were free to love others, the relationship between the three of us was the main relationship,’’ Lilach wrote in an affidavit.
Soon after the three moved into the property, they had a ceremony where the Pauls gave a ring to Mead.
‘‘We all wore our rings throughout our 15-year relationship, but I did lose my ring about two years ago,’’ Lilach said.
In November 2017, Lilach separated from Mead and Brett and the following year Brett and Mead separated.
Mead still lives at the Kumeu¯ property.
In February 2019, Lilach applied to the Family Court seeking orders determining shares in the Kumeu¯ property.
She sought a third share as the trio had been in a ‘‘committed relationship’’ for more than 15 years.
Mead objected, saying the relationship had been between three people and did not qualify as a de facto relationship under the Property (Relationships) Act.
Brett also filed a notice of defence and a cross-application for orders determining the parties’ shares in the relationship property.
In June, Judge Pidwell said she was not aware of any case law relating to the issues at hand. Justice Anne Hinton’s judgment, released yesterday, said the Property (Relationships) Act did not apply to relationships of more than two people.
Justice Hinton ruled in favour of Mead.