Lucy Vala-Blackmore

Qualifications

LLB, University of Waikato 2019
Admitted to the Bar in New Zealand 2020

Community & Industry Activity

Te Wahi Whakaoara Rotorua Women’s Refuge Board Member
New Zealand Law Society Family Law Section Executive Committee Member
New Zealand Law Society Waikato/BOP Women in Law Committee Member
Community Law Rotorua (Family Law Clinic) Volunteer

Contact

DDI: +64 7 349 5562
E: lucy.vala-blackmore@hobec.co.nz

Lucy Vala-Blackmore is an Associate in Holland Beckett’s family law team, based in Rotorua.

Lucy grew up in Rotorua before moving to Hamilton to complete her Bachelor of Laws at the University of Waikato. She returned home to Rotorua and joined Holland Beckett as a Summer Clerk before becoming a graduate lawyer. Since then, Lucy has continued to progress within the firm and has played an important role in the growth of our family law practice in Rotorua.

Lucy advises clients across a broad range of family law matters, including relationship property disputes, estate disputes, family protection claims, family violence matters, adoption applications, parenting and care of children disputes, and applications under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. She regularly appears in the Family Court and is a Lead Provider for family legal aid.

Alongside her work, Lucy is passionate about supporting the Rotorua and Bay of Plenty communities. She is a Board Member of Te Wāhi Whakaora Rotorua and District Women’s Refuge and serves on the Executive Committee of the New Zealand Law Society Family Law Section.

Lucy Vala-Blackmore's Expertise

Family Law

Civil Litigation & Dispute Resolution

Lucy Vala-Blackmore's News & Resources

Holland Beckett recognises five new Associates

Holland Beckett is pleased to announce the promotion of Cory Lipinski, Lucy Vala-Blackmore, Shannon Eldridge, Anya Sherwan and Jemma Hollis to Associate. The promotions span the firm’s Environment and Planning, Corporate and Finance, Family Law and Litigation teams, recognising professional achievement, leadership, technical expertise and a commitment to delivering excellent outcomes for clients and communities across the Bay of Plenty. L-R: Cory Lipinski, Lucy Vala-Blackmore, Shannon Eldridge, Anya Sherwen, Jemma Hollis Cory Lipinski Associate – Environment and Planning Cory is an environment and resource management specialist with expertise across planning, local government and environmental matters. After completing an LLB and BA at Victoria University of Wellington, Cory began his legal career in Auckland before returning to Tauranga and joining Holland Beckett\'s Environment and Planning team. He advises a wide range of clients, from private individuals seeking resource consents to organisations undertaking major infrastructure and nationally significant projects. Cory has acted as lead counsel in Council and Department of Conservation hearings and as junior counsel in the High Court. Known for his technical expertise and strategic judgement, Cory translates complex planning and regulatory issues into practical advice that helps clients achieve their objectives. Lucy Vala-Blackmore Associate – Family Law Lucy Vala-Blackmore is a specialist family lawyer based in Holland Beckett’s Rotorua office. A Rotorua local, Lucy completed her LLB at the University of Waikato before returning home and joining Holland Beckett as a Summer Clerk in 2019. Since then, she has progressed through the firm from graduate to senior solicitor and now associate. Lucy has developed extensive experience across all areas of family law and regularly appears in the Family Court. She is known for her calm, solution-focused approach to complex family, relationship property, and trust disputes. Lucy is a Lead Provider for family legal aid, serves on the Executive Committee of the New Zealand Law Society Family Law Section, and is a Board Member of Te Wāhi Whakaora Rotorua and District Women\'s Refuge. She has played an important role in the growth of Holland Beckett\'s family law practice in Rotorua and contributes to both the legal profession and the Rotorua community through her governance and voluntary roles. Shannon Eldridge Associate – Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution Dr Shannon Eldridge (Whakatōhea) is a litigator recognised for his technical excellence, analytical approach and strong advocacy skills. Shannon joined Holland Beckett\'s Litigation and Dispute Resolution team in Rotorua in late 2024, bringing experience across a diverse range of legal matters. Shannon advises on a broad range of civil disputes as well as criminal, employment and administrative law matters. His practice is supported by a strong academic background, including degrees in Law and Psychology, a Master\'s degree with First Class Honours in Criminology, and a PhD in Law from the University of Auckland. Shannon serves on the Rotorua District Licensing Committee and volunteers his time and expertise with Citizens Advice Bureau. Outside of work, he is also involved in local theatre productions. Anya Sherwen Associate – Corporate and Finance Anya Sherwen joined Holland Beckett’s Corporate and Finance team in 2024, bringing commercial experience developed across New Zealand and Switzerland. After graduating from the University of Otago with honours degrees in French and Law, Anya began her legal career in Wellington with a focus on commercial law. She then spent several years in French-speaking Switzerland, where she completed a bilingual Master of Laws specialising in Business and Tax Law, and International and European Law, before returning to her hometown of Tauranga with her family. Anya is highly regarded for her commercial acumen, collaborative approach and the strategic advice she provides to clients across a broad range of corporate and commercial matters. She works closely on the team’s international aviation practice, advising on financing, acquisitions and sales, leasing and lease restructuring. Jemma Hollis Associate – Environment and Planning Jemma combines specialist legal expertise with more than a decade of planning and policy experience, giving her a unique perspective on resource management matters. Her experience spans resource management and planning, public works acquisitions, local government processes, enforcement, and emerging legislative reforms. She has appeared as counsel in the District Court, Environment Court, High Court, and Supreme Court of New Zealand. She has also acted on complex consenting, planning, judicial review, heritage, conservation, and coastal matters. Between 2021 and 2024, she worked at a Tauranga-based law firm, providing advice and representation in mediations, hearings, and court proceedings. Before entering legal practice, Jemma spent a decade in planning and policy roles with local and regional authorities in Tauranga and Auckland. During that time, she specialised in notified applications and appeals, regularly providing expert planning evidence at hearings and in the Environment Court. Her combined legal and planning background enables her to deliver strategic advice on complex resource management issues.

Testamentary guardians

What is a testamentary guardian? A testamentary guardian is a person appointed by Will or Deed to help make important decisions about a child\'s upbringing after a parent\'s death. By appointing a testamentary guardian you are not appointing somebody to care for your child if you die. That is something quite different and cannot be provided for in a Will. You can read more about testamentary and court appointed guardians in the Care of Children Act 2004. What does a testamentary guardian do? A testamentary guardian is appointed alongside the surviving parent (usually) for input into “the big important decisions” about a child’s upbringing like education (where do they go to school), health (major medical decisions not routine day-to-day medical issues), religion, residence (which country or region do they live in, not a specific house or street), and permission to marry under the age of 18. These rights and responsibilities end when the child attains the age of 18 years or earlier if the child marries, enters a civil union, or lives with another person as a de facto partner. A testamentary guardian has the same rights and responsibilities as the living parent/guardian but only upon the death of the appointor. They have no say in the upbringing of the child prior to that parent’s death. When should you appoint one? It is worth considering if you have separated from your child’s other parent to ensure your views about upbringing are represented in the event of your death or if you are worried your family will be “cut off” from the child when you die. If you are still happily in a relationship it is probably not necessary to appoint a testamentary guardian as it is likely you can trust your spouse/partner to make good guardianship decisions for your children if you die. If you are worried about what happens if you both die together then you could each say in your wills that “if we both die together, we appoint X as a guardian.” If you are the sole guardian of your child (the other parent has died already) then you should definitely consider appointing a testamentary guardian. So, who looks after my children if I die? The surviving parent would usually remain carer for the child unless unwilling or unable or unsuitable. If you have both died it is assumed that the family will rally around the child to take them in. Whoever they live with (which may be the testamentary guardian if appointed or may not be – there is no default assumption) may then file an application for a parenting order providing them day-to-day care together with guardianship orders if necessary. A testamentary guardian could apply for a parenting order if they wanted to contest day-to-day care or seek contact rights to the child, and as they are already a guardian they would not need the leave of the Court to do so. Before an application for a parenting order can be filed, the guardian will normally have to provide evidence that he or she has sought to resolve the matter with the other guardian/s by family dispute resolution unless the circumstances are urgent. The legal test to determine a child’s care arrangements is “what is in the welfare and best interests of the child” so it depends on all the circumstances at the time. Can a testamentary guardian refuse the role? Only one testamentary guardian can be appointed and the consent of the person to be appointed as a testamentary guardian is not required. A person appointed as a testamentary guardian cannot decline the appointment. As a guardian of the child, the appointee could apply to the court for an order for his or her own removal. Another guardian could also apply for removal of the testamentary guardian.

Buying property with family – fun or potential fiasco?

In the present economic climate, getting into (or climbing) the property ladder is tough. To get a deal across the line, purchasers are increasingly looking to alternative ownership options. One such option we commonly see is ‘co-ownership’ of property between family members. Taking matters a step further than the traditional parental guarantee of a child’s purchase, we are now seeing co-ownership between multiple relatives (such as siblings and their spouses, or parents and all/some of their children). This is despite that not all owners intend to live in or maintain the property. While this sounds good on paper, unfortunately these arrangements often proceed without the appropriate documentation and can go wrong. Untangling them can be complex where there has been intermingling of purchase funds, family members not being treated equally, deaths occurring and relationships souring over time. What to do if you want to buy property with other people? If you are buying property with others (often who are not your spouse or partner), you should have a written agreement to cover key aspects. The terms can cover: ownership shares and monetary contributions to purchase (including bank loans); who will live in the property; who will pay property expenses and maintenance; what will happen if someone wants to sell the property and others don’t; what happens on death of a party; and how will any proceeds of sale be distributed. This way, if a dispute does arise there will be a clear path forward to minimise any fall out (if possible). Property Sharing Agreements are used to document these arrangements, which are simple but effective. Purchasers can also consider whether funds should be gifted or loaned. Our property lawyers can assist you with this process. You can also read our article on Gift v Loan. If you are wanting to buy property with your partner or spouse, there are a different set of questions and documentation to consider (for example, whether you need a contracting out agreement). Our dedicated family team can advise you on all aspects of relationship property. See also our article on Contracting Out Agreements 101. When it goes wrong A recent example of an undocumented family property purchase is the case of Boot (As Executor and Trustee of Estate of Hart) v Stephens [2023] NZHC 3863. Parents (the Harts) helped their daughter and her husband (the Stephens) buy a property. The title said that each couple owned a 50% share of the property, but in reality, the Stephens contributed more to the purchase price. They also paid for most of the property expenses in that time. Years later, both the Harts died, and their other five children wanted to sell the property so that 50% of the sale proceeds could be distributed to the children via their mother’s estate. The Stephens claimed that they were entitled to 67% of the property. Additionally, they had lived in the property for 17 years and did not want to sell. Ultimately, the Court held that, given the family’s intentions and contributions, the Stephens were entitled to 66% and could buy out the estate’s 34% interest. Regrettably, the dispute and litigation took a toll on the siblings’ relationships. If you own property with your family and there is a dispute There are a number of options to resolve a dispute if there is no written agreement, including obtaining Court orders to force a sale under the Property Law Act 2007. First and foremost, our experienced litigation lawyers can help you to resolve matters before Court through negotiation or mediation, if possible. If negotiations are not successful, we can guide you through the litigation process.

Relationship Property: if we split, who gets the family dog?

Separation can be a difficult process. Not only are there a lot of emotions involved, but there are likely to be assets that are owned jointly, or separately but which have been used by both parties during the relationship. Working out who gets to keep what can be straightforward in some cases, but often the matter is more complex than you may expect. The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“PRA”) determines how assets and debts are divided after the end of a marriage, civil union or qualifying de facto relationship. In limited circumstances, the PRA can also apply to relationships of shorter duration. What is relationship property? The PRA defines both relationship property and separate property. The family home and family chattels, whenever acquired and in whoever’s name they are legally owned, are relationship property. Contrary to popular belief, whether or not you owned the family home or chattels before the relationship, they will be relationship property dividable equally between both parties to the relationship (subject to certain limited exceptions). Family chattels can include furniture, appliances, household tools, pets, as well as cars, caravans, trailers and boats if they were used wholly or principally for family purposes. Gifts from one spouse or partner to the other are generally not regarded as relationship property – so no, you don’t have to give back the rings. Relationship property may also include superannuation and KiwiSaver, shares and investments, business interests, life insurance policies, rental and investment properties, property acquired in contemplation of the relationship, rights in respect of a trust, as well as relationship debt (which does not have to be in the parties’ joint names). Bank accounts which hold funds earned or received during the relationship are also likely relationship property despite being in the name of only one of the parties. Taonga and heirlooms, as well as chattels used wholly or principally for business purposes, are excluded from the definition of family chattels. This means these items will usually be separate property rather than relationship property, however this is decided on a case-by-case basis. What is separate property? Any property that is not relationship property is separate property. Such property does not need to be divided between the parties to the relationship. Generally, separate property also includes: Property which was acquired by either party whilst they were not in a relationship and that has not been used during the relationship for family purposes; Property acquired out of separate property or any proceeds of sale of separate property; Any increase in value of separate property and any increase in income or gains derived from separate property; Property acquired from a third person by gift, inheritance, or as a beneficiary of a third person’s trust. Can separate property become relationship property? It is important to keep property acquired by succession, survivorship, gift, or under a third party’s trust separate if you intend it to be separate property. If property can be seen to have been intermingled with relationship property, making it unreasonable or impracticable to regard it as separate property, it will become part of the relationship property pool. Is relationship property always divided equally? You won’t walk away with half of a car, so don’t get the chainsaw out. Generally, global division of relationship property can be reached without property needing to be sold – or cut in half. This involves taking into account the total value of the assets being retained by each party, and one global adjustment figure being paid by one party to the other party to ‘equalise’ the overall division so that each party is keeping 50% of the total net value of the relationship property pool. While relationship property is generally divided equally between the parties of the relationship, there are limited circumstances where division should occur in unequal proportions. This may be due to economic disparity between the parties because of the effects of the division of functions within the relationship or in extraordinary circumstances that would make equal sharing repugnant to justice – although this is a high threshold to meet. What about the pets? With the classification of pets such as cats and dogs as family chattels, you obviously will not both be able to keep your fur babies. The court has formulated their own way of determining who gets to keep the pet based on the pet’s best interests. This means the court considers practical things like who takes the best care of the pet, who is able to provide the best home for the pet and the pet’s needs. Do we need to disclose everything? In order for your lawyer to advise you on what the full relationship property pool consists of and what your legal entitlements are, a process of disclosure by both parties of all assets, debts and interests must take place. Values will be determined, as well as the status of the item as relationship property or separate property. Following the completion of that process, the division of property can usually then be agreed by way of negotiation. Will we need to go to Court? Most people do not need to resort to the Family Court in order to resolve their relationship property division. It is only if an agreement cannot be reached between you and your former spouse/partner that Court proceedings are needed. Independent legal advice Each party must receive independent legal advice as part of entering into a legally binding Separation Agreement. To be valid as a full, final and binding settlement, any agreement must be in writing and signed by both parties after independent legal advice and in the presence of their lawyers. If you find yourself experiencing a break up of a long term relationship, the specialist Family Law team at Holland Beckett can offer you practical and pragmatic advice with care and sensitivity. We have a team of lawyers who are experienced in negotiating and drafting Separation Agreements, or taking matters to court if needed.

Contracting Out Agreements 101

In New Zealand, there is a general legal presumption that once you have been in a de facto relationship for three years, relationship property is to be divided on a 50/50 basis if you separate or one of you dies. You and your partner can agree to divide your relationship property in a way that is more appropriate for your relationship by entering into a legally binding Contracting Out Agreement (also known as a “pre-nup”). The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“the Act”) The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“the Act”) sets out how relationship property is to be classified, valued and divided upon separation. The general presumption under the law is that once you have been in a de facto relationship for three years, relationship property is to be divided on a 50/50 basis unless you have entered into a legally binding Contracting Out Agreement. The question of whether or not you are in a de facto relationship is not always “black and white” as this depends on all of the circumstances of your relationship but in essence boils down to whether you are “living together in a relationship in the nature of marriage”. Sometimes, when people separate prior to being de facto for 3 years, there may already be some relationship property entitlements where there are children of the relationship or if substantial contributions have been made to the relationship, but the 50/50 presumption does not apply until you reach the “3 year mark”. However, once your relationship reaches the “3 year mark”, the Act has a retrospective effect in that all assets and liabilities acquired from the start of your relationship will become relationship property and will be divided in accordance with the Act if you do not have a Contracting Out Agreement. The Act is based on the model of a couple whose relationship commences at a young age with each partner having few assets, and together they build up assets over the course of their relationship. Many couples do not fit this model, for example if one partner is bringing significantly more assets to the relationship than the other partner. Therefore they may wish to make alternative arrangements for the division of their relationship property in the event that they separate. Contracting Out Agreements When you sign a Contracting Out Agreement pursuant the Act, you are agreeing with your partner that certain sections of the Act will not apply in the event that your relationship ends and your relationship property needs to be divided. If you and your partner do not enter into a Contracting Out Agreement, the Act will govern your relationship property division in the event of separation or death. In order for a Contracting Out Agreement to be legally binding, it must be: Recorded in writing and signed by both parties; Each party needs to have obtained independent legal advice; Each parties’ lawyer will need to certify that they have given you independent legal advice and have fully explained the effects and implications of the Agreement to you before you signed it. The benefit of entering a Contracting Out Agreement is that it will give you and your partner clarity and peace of mind on how your assets and liabilities will be divided in the event of your separation or death. Some common examples where a Contracting Out Agreement may be appropriate are: Where you and your partner are buying a home together and one of you is contributing significantly more or less than the other, and you do not want the home to be split 50/50 if you separate; Where one partner enters the relationship with significantly more assets than the other partner such as interests in Trusts, businesses or property that they wish to protect; Where an older couple chooses to live together in a pre-existing home owned by one partner solely, and that partner wants to ensure the other partner does not become entitled to a half share in that home on separation or death; Where one partner is gifted or inherits funds that they wish to protect; or Where one partner has significantly more liabilities or business risk than the other. You and your partner can enter into a Contracting Out Agreement at any point during your relationship, however we recommend doing so as early in your relationship as possible. Contracting Out Agreements are not totally ‘watertight’ but they are the best available protection from relationship property claims. It is possible for a party to apply to the Court to set aside a Contracting Out Agreement on the basis that it would cause them “serious injustice” if it was upheld. Whilst this is a high threshold to meet, it is very important to ensure that your Contracting Out Agreement is fair for each partner and their circumstances, and to review it regularly to ensure this remains the case in light of changes in your circumstances and developments in the law. The above information is intended as general advice only. If you are in a relationship and are considering whether a Contracting Out Agreement would be suitable for you and your partner, Holland Beckett’s family team are more than happy to assist. For advice on your own specific circumstances please contact one of our specialist family lawyers.

Family Dispute Resolution for non-urgent parenting disputes

What is FDR? Family Dispute Resolution (“FDR”) is a mediation service, designed to help separated couples and their families resolve disagreements regarding care of children. Attempting FDR is usually a mandatory pre-requisite before you can apply for a parenting or guardianship order in the Family Court. There are limited exceptions to this. For example, FDR is not appropriate where family violence is involved or where urgent orders are required to prevent harm or hardship to you or your child. Preparing for FDR The ‘Parenting through Separation’ course (“PTS”) is a free 4 hour course which aims to help you understand and manage the effects of separation on your child/ren. You and your ex-partner attend separately. During the course you will create a parenting plan which will help you work out what parenting arrangements could work best for you. PTS is also normally a pre-requisite before you can file proceedings in the Family Court. What to expect at FDR An impartial mediator will run the FDR session. Mediators, also known as “FDR providers” can be found on the Ministry of Justice website at: https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/care-of-children/find-a-service-to-help-with-disputes/. Once you have found a mediator, you will be required to provide details of all parties involved in the dispute. This will usually be your ex-partner, however it can also include a member of your wider family, for example a grandparent of the child/ren, if they are involved in providing care for the child/ren. Before FDR begins, the mediator will want to understand whether the dispute is suitable for FDR. They will ask you some screening questions such as: whether you or your children have been subject to domestic violence; whether you can fully take part in FDR. For example, the other party may live overseas or, does not wish to partake or, you may have a disability which makes it difficult for you to attend/participate; and whether you may be benefit from preparatory counselling before attending the FDR session/s. Preparatory counselling can be helpful if you are feeling too stressed about the relationship issues to think clearly and calmly about shared care arrangements for your children. It can help you prepare for discussion you will need to have at FDR. During FDR, the mediator is there to facilitate an open discussion and to help you resolve your disputes about care of your children, including: who they live with and when; how changeovers are managed; childcare arrangements (e.g. after school care and holiday care); and other important dates like birthdays and celebrations. Guardianship issues can also be discussed, for example: where the children go to school; religion; names; and medical treatment. Lawyers are not allowed to attend FDR, although you are entitled to seek legal advice at any stage during the process. In particular, you may wish to seek legal advice before agreeing to a particular arrangement. If an agreement is reached following FDR, the mediator will write up the agreement in full. This is not a binding Court order. If, after time, you want to vary the agreement, both parties need to give their consent to the variation. It is also possible to formalise the FDR agreement by way of applying to the Family Court by consent for a Parenting Order. Conclusion FDR is often a compulsory first step in resolving parenting disputes following separation. If you would like any further advice regarding care of children and guardianship issues, please don’t hesitate to get in contact with one of our family law specialists.