There's an old English riddle that begins "As I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wives".
It beats me why anyone would want to have seven mothers-in-law, but I stepped up to this morose-looking knave and spoke, "Why the long face, mate?" He appeared penniless, his pants and boots were torn and worn and I noticed he didn't have a shirt to his back.
"I've just come from the Family Court at St Ives," he wailed.
I tried to console him with my limited knowledge of law.
He had been a very naughty boy, in and out of relationships for the past 14 years, including two legal marriages, three de factos, a longstanding tryst with Fifi, a lap dancer girlfriend, and, until recently, this woebegone had been living with a sailor in Frinton.
All these relationships had broken up and every former partner had lodged a claim against his assets.
Their cases had been heard that day before Family Court judge Boadicea Nothing-Left.
Luckily, I had two volumes of Butterworth's New Zealand Family Law in my backpack and we sat down next to a one-tooth yokel on a low bridge near a peat bog and I began.
"First of all," I started.
"You have seven wives because the Property [Relationships] Amendment Act 2002 lumps wives, de facto partners and same-sex relationships all together. Perhaps Fifi may not pass the de facto test but . . ."
He butted in.
"Fifi's been my `bit on the side' for seven years and I set her up in a flat," he moaned, effectively disarming that possible defence.
De factos are defined in section of 2D of the Act and a girlfriend did not qualify as a wife.
But Fifi obviously did, so I turned to the time limitation defence. "Married wives have 12 months from the date of the dissolution of the marriage to file a claim, unless there is jointly-owned property.
A three-year rule from the break-up applies to de facto relationships."
I tested him. "How do those rules apply to `The Magnificent Seven'?" I quipped.
The yokel liked this neat play on words, guffawing through his Cornish pasty, but my witty analogy was lost on this fellow.
But he put the kibosh on the time limitation defences.
"The first legal marriage lasted six years and was dissolved, but we still jointly own a rental property and a house bus.
"The next three were de factos but each live in apartments in my name in different towns.
"Greta has a child to me aged 7. We lasted four years. Darlene also has a kid and paid all my debts when I was going through a tough time.
"She gave up training as a nurse to look after me. Britney lasted for six months but she made no financial contributions except to buy a car, which I sold.
"The second marriage is not dissolved but we had a business selling marital aids which is still run by a manager.
"Fifi, my girlfriend, never knew about the others.
"I lived with her every third week for seven years in a converted barn. She thought I was a travelling salesman.
"She's a bit annoyed."
The English are so good at understatement.
"Sam the sailor, in Frinton, is a real gentleman and we lived together for 10 months.
"I purchased a cottage in my name but he put up one-third."
I continued.
"Different rules apply to de facto relationships which started before or after February 1, 2002.
"Relationship property is divided equally after three years, with some difficult exceptions, but if under three years then a contributions assessment is made. But there is a further twist.
"Under section 11, a de facto wife cannot succeed with a claim under the Act unless there are dependent children.
"It's all a bit complicated."
I then pointed out that section 15 of the Act allows the court to order a greater share if "satisfied that the income and living standards of one partner are likely to be significantly higher than the other partner, because of the effects of the division of functions within the relationship while the parties were living together".
"What did the judge order?" I inquired.
He sniffed and told me.
His tale followed New Zealand law so there was a lesson here for all of us.
"The judge started by saying that there were not enough assets or money to satisfy everyone."
She had said imperiously, "This court is being asked to make seven coats out of one bolt of cloth."
"The first wife got half of what we owned jointly because they were half in her name.
"That was no problem.
"Greta, the first de facto, had a dependent child and she got half of the apartment but at the value three years ago because she had since done it up.
"So I got nothing.
"Darlene lasted 18 months but she got the lot because she had given up a promising nursing career to look after me.
"Britney got nothing from the apartment but I had to pay her back everything I got from the sale of the car, plus interest.
"Fifi won the jackpot! The judge ruled our relationship was most longstanding and committed even though we didn't live together full-time.
Fifi received all of the net remaining assets in my name.
"My second wife won all the business because she had been responsible for running it since separation.
"Sam the sailor got one-third of the cottage, plus 20,000 for improvements.
"There's nothing left for me," he wailed.
"I thought I would have got at least half of each asset but the judge repeated that seven claims dissipated all of the money and there was none left."
I gave him a hug, taking care not to imply an eighth relationship was beginning, and continued on my way.
Lo and behold, 5km closer to St Ives, I met a jolly group of laughing travellers, six women and a sailor, all carrying bulging and squirming sacks.
I felt I had stumbled into one of Chaucer's tales, then, suddenly, the next part of the riddle jumped into my head.
As I was going to St Ives I met a man with seven wivesAnd every wife had seven sacks, and every sack had seven cats And every cat had seven kits.
So, if my maths are correct, there were 2401 cats and kittens.
Bother! I had forgotten to tell him about section 2 of the Property (Relationships) Act, which includes household pets under the definition of "family chattels".
It appears my new friend had lost all of them as well.
Some people just can't win. Postscript: Rumours of his death are greatly exaggerated.
In my column a month ago (the one about Mabel Howard's enormous bloomers), I referred to "the late Brian MacDonell".
Good-natured Brian rang from Australia to remind me he is indeed alive and kicking and in good health.
My sincere apologies for any distress caused to his family or anyone else. - Michael Guest
