Throuple trouble: dividing relationship property when love comes in threes

It generally takes two to tango when it comes to relationship property disputes in New Zealand. But can those disputes extend to throuples who separate?

In Mead v Paul [2023] NZSC 70, the Supreme Court held that the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) can apply to polyamorous relationships (relationships involving more than two consenting partners) where they contain two or more qualifying de facto relationships. Two years later, the Family Court has now shown how that principle works in practice in Paul v Mead [2025] NZFC 11701.

Background: Mead v Paul and Paul v Mead

Three individuals: A, B, and C were in an intimate relationship for approximately 15 years. A and C formed a romantic and sexual relationship while B was overseas. When B returned, B also formed an emotional and sexual relationship with C. The trio later lived together on a rural property owned by C. Although their relationship was not exclusive, they understood their commitment to one another as the central, “core” relationship in their lives.

The relationship began to unravel in late 2017. B separated from A and C first. A and C then separated several months later, shortly after B and A were asked to leave the shared home. In 2019, B applied for division of relationship property. B claimed that C’s rural property was the family home and sought a one-third share in the property pool. C disputed the application, arguing that the PRA does not apply to three-person relationships. The dispute reached the Supreme Court, which held that although the PRA does not recognise a polyamorous relationship as a single unit, it can apply if the relationship contains two or more pairwise qualifying de facto relationships.

When the case returned to the Family Court, the Judge had to determine whether:

1. B and C were in a qualifying de facto relationship; and
2. A and C were in a qualifying de facto relationship.

Family Court Outcome: How the Property Was Divided

C argued that the relationship was a single, inseparable throuple and that it was artificial to break it into separate dyadic (ie, two-person) relationships. C said that the three had always presented themselves as a unit and intended the relationship to be between all three of them. The Court rejected that argument. It found that the evidence supported the existence of two distinct de facto relationships, one between C and A, and another between C and B.

When dividing property, the Judge applied the PRA’s underlying principles of equality of contribution and equal sharing. The main asset (the rural property) was relationship property for both de facto relationships. The Court therefore concluded that the just and principled outcome was to divide the relationship property pool into equal one-third shares among A, B, and C.

C retained ownership of the rural property, which had an estimated value of approximately $1.85 million. B retained personal savings, superannuation, artworks, and personal debts. A retained modest personal assets and debts. C was required to make substantial payments, each exceeding $600,000 to both A and B to reflect their one-third interests and to account for C’s exclusive occupation of the property after separation.

Why This Case Matters for Polyamorous Relationships in NZ

The Family Court has demonstrated a careful, principled and pragmatic approach to dividing relationship property in the context of a throuple. This case was relatively straightforward because the key asset was relationship property in both de facto relationships. More complex situations remain for future courts to consider, including cases involving multiple periods of separation, assets belonging to only some dyadic relationships, or arrangements involving companies, trusts, or other entities.

While the circumstances of A, B, and C may be unusual (or potentially not?), the case highlights an important point: the PRA can apply to polyamorous relationships, provided they can be broken down into distinct qualifying de facto relationships.

If you are in a polyamorous relationship and need guidance on your relationship property rights, seek legal advice early. Our team has extensive experience in complex relationship property matters and can help you navigate these issues with confidence.

Courtney Donaldson, Senior Associate – Relationship Property and Family Law Team

Zakary Trapski, Associate – Relationship Property and Family Law Team