Relationship Property Archives

Caveats

April 9, 2026

Property Law, Real Estate Transactions, Relationship Property, Risk Management, Wealth & Asset Planning

What are they?

A caveat is a warning and, once registered, notifies the world at large to ‘be aware’ of a potential claim.
In the property sector, a caveat is a legal instrument that can be registered against a property title to protect a person’s rights or interests in respect of a particular property. A caveat prevents the registered owner/s of the property from transferring, selling or disposing of, mortgaging or otherwise dealing with it.

Why register a caveat?

The Land Transfer Act 2017 stipulates when caveats can be registered. It is important that the person wanting to register a caveat (the caveator) meets specific requirements as set out in the legislation.

The caveator must have a ‘caveatable interest’ in the property. The legislation specifies the situations in which a caveatable interest may exist. If you think you may have a caveatable interest in a property, we encourage you to talk with us about your particular situation.

One common scenario in which caveats are registered is when a person dies and the executors of their will are in the process of transferring or otherwise dealing with the deceased person’s property. The deceased’s former partner or spouse may register a caveat (called a notice of claim in this situation) against the deceased’s property to protect their interests and their right to bring any claims under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. This is particularly common in situations where executors are unwilling to cooperate or consider such claims.

Another situation in which caveats are commonly registered is where a person is a beneficiary of a trust and has an expressly recorded entitlement to a particular property or piece of land. That beneficiary may wish to prevent their entitlement from being transferred or otherwise dealt with, and so may register a caveat to protect their proprietary interest.

It is important to keep in mind that registering a caveat is not a decision that should be made lightly. There are serious potential consequences for the caveator if a caveat is improperly registered. The Act allows people affected by the registration of a caveat to claim compensation for loss or damage against the person who registered it, especially where there was no caveatable interest to begin with. Lawyers can also face liability and be penalised for assisting their client to register a caveat where there is no caveatable interest. Claims for compensation are heard and determined by the High Court.

One situation in which people may seek to claim compensation is when the sale of the property has been impacted or delayed by the registration of a caveat, and there were no reasonable grounds to justify the registration of the caveat or sustain one in the first place. Affected people may apply to the court for compensation for loss or damage. This compensation could include an award of compensatory damages (to compensate and restore the claimant to the financial position they would have been in had the caveat not been registered) and, in extreme cases, punitive damages (designed to punish the caveator).

Registering a caveat

Once you have confirmed a caveatable interest in a particular property, you should discuss with us about registering that caveat. We will prepare and ask you to sign an Authority and Instruction Form. This confirms your instructions and facilitates registration of the caveat on the Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) database.

When can caveats be removed?

There are three situations in which caveats are removed:

By consent
If the caveat lapses, or
By a court order.

More commonly, caveats are removed when the parties have set aside their differences, and the caveator may decide to withdraw the caveat from the property title.^[1]

Further, the Act^[2] provides that a caveat may lapse following an application made by an affected person, usually the registered owner of the property, to the Land Transfer Registrar, unless a specific and timely response is received from both the caveator and the court. The caveat will lapse unless the caveator makes an application to the court within 10 working days to sustain the caveat, and the court makes one of three types of order within a further 20 working days. The orders the court can make include an interim or temporary order that the caveat not lapse, a final order or an order postponing the caveator’s application for the time being.

As well, the Act^[3] confirms that a person who has an estate or interest affected by a caveat may apply to the court for an order that the caveat be removed. This means that the registered owner, for example, may apply to the court rather than to the Land Transfer Registrar seeking removal of the caveat. Claims for compensation for loss or damage may also be made at the same time.

In summary, a caveat is a robust tool for protecting one’s rights and interests over real property. It is important to receive sound legal advice on the effects and implications of registering a caveat, due to the risks and consequences associated with registering one incorrectly.

^[1] Section 144.

^[2] Section 143.

^[3] Section 142.

DISCLAIMER: All the information published in Property Speaking is true and accurate to the best of the authors’ knowledge. It should not be a substitute for legal advice. No liability is assumed by the authors or publisher for losses suffered by any person or organisation relying directly or indirectly on this newsletter. Views expressed are those of individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the view of Edmonds Judd. Articles appearing in Property Speaking may be reproduced with prior approval from the editor and credit given to the source.
Content Copyright © NZ LAW Limited, 2026. Editor: Adrienne Olsen. E-mail: [email protected] Ph: 029 286 3650

Options to buy a property during a cost of living crisis

April 9, 2026

Banking & Finance, Property Law, Relationship Property, Wealth & Asset Planning

While the property market has settled somewhat after the Covid boom, house prices in New Zealand are still high. For many, buying a home on your own is no longer viable. It is becoming necessary to consider alternative structures to help make buying a property more affordable.

Borrowing from parents

It is not a new concept, but the rise of house prices in New Zealand has meant that it is very difficult to buy a home without some extra financial help from mum and dad.

If this seems to be a realistic plan, it is important that both you and your parents get separate advice on how this could be structured.

Loans are an effective way for parents to help their children buy a home, without exposing those funds to relationship property losses. Lenders will often want money from parents to be a gift as part of a purchase. However, careful advice and structuring of money from the bank of mum and dad can mean that parents can provide financial assistance without fear of losing half of their money if a child and their partner separate.

It is possible for parental loans and bank loans to both exist in harmony provided you seek the right advice up front. You want to ensure all parties are protected before taking that first step to buy a property.

Co-ownership

Owning a home with a friend or relative to alleviate the rising costs is becoming a more common way for Kiwis to get onto the property ladder.

An important step to include as part of entering into co-ownership arrangements is to set out and define both parties’ understanding and expectations in respect of the property expenses, each party’s initial contributions and what happens if one of you dies, or wants or needs to sell their share.

These considerations are typically set out in what is called a property sharing agreement. Again, good advice before you buy a property with a friend or family member and a comprehensive property sharing agreement will help both parties understand their own rights and obligations before it is too late. As well, it assists to preserve whatever relationship you have with your co-owner if you do decide to go your separate ways.

Property sharing agreements can cover a range of co-ownership relationships from parent/child, siblings, other more remote family relationships or friends. Co-ownership in a de facto or spousal relationship, however, requires different specialist advice. Before you dive into buying a property with your friend, speak to us about ensuring both parties are protected and go into the venture fully aware of what you are getting into.

Iwi schemes

There are now a range of iwi schemes available for Māori to enter into shared equity ownership with either a scheme provider or their local iwi.

The criteria to qualify for these schemes differs depending on the scheme, but usually these are predominantly based on whether or not your whakapapa to a particular iwi, along with requiring some financial assistance to buy your first home.

The iwi or scheme provider buys a share of the property with you on specifically drafted terms that govern your shared ownership. These also usually include a timeframe in which you are meant to buy out the iwi or scheme provider from the shared equity arrangement, ultimately resulting in you owning your own property.

Other schemes with a wider base or catchment may assist members from a region or iwi or locality.

Understanding the criteria to apply and/or the rules that govern any iwi-based shared equity schemes are important. Be sure to contact us for advice on how the scheme that you qualify for works and what you have to do to keep to your side of the deal.

Blending Families, Protecting Futures

November 26, 2025

Blended Families, Contracting out agreements, De Facto Relationships, Estate, Estate & Inheritance Planning, Family Law, Family Protection Act, Legal Life Planning, Property & Asset Protection, Relationship Property, Storybook Series, Wills & Succession

It had been eight long months since Sally separated from Luke, and things were looking up. She and Luke had amicably split, agreed on the division of relationship property, and settled child support issues. These were a weight off her shoulders, but single life had its challenges.

She noticed that she did not see the benefit of bulk grocery purchases or split utilities bills. Sure, child support helped, but things were still tough. She had heard of the “singles tax” but seeing it in action was another thing altogether.

At the recommendation of her colleague, Lucinda, Sally decided to get back into the dating scene. Luke fully supported her in this and even agreed to take the kids during his week so that she could meet with the rather dashing Emilio.

Emilio had a similar background. He was freshly divorced and had four children who split their time between their mother in Spain, and with Emilio in New Zealand.

The relationship was going well. So well in fact that Sally decided to approach Emilio about moving in together.

“Mi amor”, Emilio began. “I love the idea of moving in with you. I agree that we are ready for that step. However, I want to broach an issue with you. A rather uncomfortable issue”.

“What is it, Emilio?” Sally asked.

“You see, I have four children of my own. My Estate is more modest since the divorce, but I still have considerable assets. I want to protect my children’s future, and in order to do that, I must protect my assets from any potential claims made by you or your children” Emilio explained.

“Oh, I see” Sally said. “I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I too want to protect what I have. I wouldn’t want to split our collective property five ways between my one child and your four children – that doesn’t seem fair”.

The couple agreed that they would go and talk to a lawyer about their estate planning.

Their respective lawyers explained that with blended families, there could be overlapping claims under the Family Protection Act. If Emilio and Sally each continued into a de facto relationship, then the presumption of equal sharing would likely apply. At the same time, Emilio and Sally each had a moral responsibility to provide for their children.

Emilio and Sally decided to enter into a contracting out agreement, to protect their respective assets. They then agreed to sign their own Wills, which reflected the provision in the contracting out agreement that neither of them would make a claim against the other’s estate.

Emilio and Sally could relax into their life together, knowing that they had a succession plan that was tailored to their individual needs, so that they didn’t have to worry about any headaches down the road.

Jamie Graham

Protecting Love and Property: Bob’s Story

July 22, 2025

Contracting out agreements, De Facto Relationships, Estate & Inheritance Planning, First Home Ownership, Planning For the Estate, Relationship Property

Bob had been living in his first home for a year when he met Lizzy at the burger bar.

They fell in love, and Bob wanted Lizzy to move into his home to live together. Bob had a funny feeling that he should seek legal advice before asking Lizzy to move in with him.

Bob went to see his lawyer at Edmonds Judd. “I’d like to talk about getting a pre-nup with my girlfriend”. “Absolutely”, Bob’s lawyer replied, “in New Zealand they are known as a Contracting Out Agreement, and they allow you to contract out of the provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976”.

Bob explained that he and Lizzy had only been dating for 6 months, however, Bob was confident that she was the one. He hoped the relationship would go on for a long time, but he was wary of what could happen if their relationship ended in a few years. “Things could get messy, right?”, said Bob. Bob’s lawyer nodded and explained a bit about relationship property law and what would happen if the relationship passes 3 years in duration.

The team at Edmonds Judd had assisted Bob with the purchase of his first home, which he funded using an inheritance from his father Steve’s estate. Recognising the importance of protecting his assets, Bob’s lawyer recommended that he enter into a Contracting Out Agreement to safeguard his property from any potential relationship property claims in the future.

“But wait”, Bob frowned, “I had a look at that, Relationship Property Act thingy before I came here, and it said that inheritance is separate property, so I don’t need a contracting out agreement.”

“Well, that’s true”, his lawyer conceded, “but only so far as the inheritance is kept sufficiently separate from any relationship property. If Lizzy moves into your home and you do not enter into a Contracting Out Agreement, the whole property would be considered relationship property if the relationship passes 3 years in duration and qualifies as a “de facto relationship”. Bob was gobsmacked and decided he would like to proceed with the preparation of a Contracting Out Agreement but first he needed to have a difficult conversation with Lizzy.

Fortunately, when he had a chat with Lizzy, it wasn’t a difficult conversation at all. She was on board with entering a Contracting Out Agreement as she owned a property with her sister that she wanted to keep out of the relationship property pool too.

They were both comfortable with their decision and instructed their respective lawyers to prepare and negotiate the Contracting Out Agreement, after all, there was no harm in hoping for the best while planning for the worst.

Georgia Ellen

Relationship Property