Mona Nygaard told NZME the decision gave her a “huge sense of relief” that she and her son were now one step closer to being able to move on.

But John Gandy, one of Oscar Nygaard’s lawyers, told NZME the decision was being appealed.

In a decision released in October, Judge Kevin Muir ordered Nygaard to pay his ex-wife $762,219, which his lawyer Jennie Hawker told NZME was the equivalent of half a share of the relationship property pool.

Judge Muir said it included compensation for the “deliberate reduction in the value of the company”.

He also ordered Nygaard to pay $40,000 in compensation for the time he spent living exclusively in the house, as a form of rent, plus a compensation payment of $265,000 to balance amounts he had already taken from the trust fund pool.

He would have faced a greater loss if the court had lifted an order suspending Nygaard’s career. maintenance payments to his ex-wife.

Judge Muir said the sentence was not intended to be punitive; It simply reflected the reality that the parties would have had after their separation if it were not for Nygaard’s decisions.

Marriage on the rocks

There were signs that problems were escalating when Nygaard began what the court described as “revenge spending,” removing his wife’s access to bank accounts and then her name as a signatory on a home loan account.

They had been together for more than 25 years and married most of that time, and Nygaard had worked hard to build a company valued at $1.7 million, with the help of Mona’s family.

Months after he was told to leave, Nygaard ordered his teenage son to leave the house and his new partner to move out before the property was sold for $3.6 million.

Then, he and his partner went to another country where they started a new family.

The court has found that Nygaard’s actions were deliberate and at times vindictive, in a relationship that was “unfortunately marked” by what Judge Muir said were occasional incidents of physical violence and a continuous dynamic of psychological violence against Mona Nygaard.

Judge Muir said she did not actively work for the company and was not consulted on either strategic or day-to-day decisions.

He said part of the power and control dynamic that existed between them included Nygaard occasionally insisting that what was happening with the company was “none of his business.”

When they split up, the company’s shares were worth about $1.2 million, but they were worthless by the time the matter went to court because the company had been dissolved.

Nygaard said the company’s loss of value was due to the economic conditions at the time and the impact of the stress it was suffering as a result of the separation.

However, he accepted that he had once told his ex-wife that he would do what he could to create debt within the company and trust so that she would receive nothing if they separated.

Judge Muir said the result of the unilateral decision made at his wife’s expense was that he abandoned a valuable business causing significant loss to both himself and his wife.

“Their actions were deliberate, possibly vindictive, and the decline in the value of the company was clearly deliberate as well.

“It was not just an obvious result of what he did, but it must have been the intended result.”

family trust

The house was owned by a family trustof which Mona was a trustee and the son of the marriage was the final beneficiary.

They were left living in substandard rental accommodation and had to move several times in the two and a half years after the separation.

The court has now dissolved the trust into which the proceeds from the sale of the family home went and from which Nygaard took the money.

At one point he withdrew around $129,000 from the trust’s flexible mortgage facility and went shopping after an argument during a family holiday abroad.

A portion was used to pay spousal support under a previous court order.

However, Nygaard no longer had to pay maintenance, given the decline in his income since moving abroad and starting a new family.

“It is clear to me that you cannot afford to adequately support your new family and your current family,” Judge Muir said.

The court’s decision took into account the company’s tax debts plus the personal property the couple owned in what was described as a well-furnished home.

Mona Nygaard said she did not have the opportunity to inventory the personal property before her ex-husband left, but alleged that he and his new partner had taken most of it.

He only had access a week before the deal and described the house as “70% empty,” and had to take care of the trash and clean the house with the help of the real estate agent.

“All valuable works of art, tools, clothing, kitchen items, furniture, stools, plants and anything else of value disappeared before they left the country,” Judge Muir said.

They have each been allowed to keep their respective KiwiSaver accounts, while Mona will also receive the proceeds from the sale of a Range Rover Sport valued at $53,000, plus $5,346 that was in her bank account when they split.

Oscar Nygaard keeps the company’s shares, his clothing collection worth an estimated $200,000 plus $55,000 worth of personal property and art in the house, and the two paintings he kept worth $8,700.

He denied keeping the clothing collection, which was never formally valued, and said he “gave away” tools and materials that were company assets.

Judge Muir said that from the evidence and what had happened since the separation, it was clear that Mona Nygaard would continue to provide significant support to her son, as she has done since the separation.

*Names have been changed in accordance with Family Court rules.

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 courts and local government for the Nelson Mail.