Contracting out agreement — division of relationship property — status of family home — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 21F, 21H & 21J — A v R [2007] 2 NZLR 399 (HC) — McGill v Crozier (2001) 21 FRNZ 157 (HC). The applicant sought a 50 percent share of the family house. The respondent opposed this, claiming that the two had agreed to contract out of the presumed 50/50 division of relationship property in regards to the house. The house had been acquired by the respondent and her first husband. Upon breakdown of their marriage the ex-husband took less of the relationship property than he was entitled to, to allow the respondent to keep the house as property for herself and their two children. There had been no written "contracting out" agreement between the parties, but on multiple occasions the respondent had tried to legally formalise the applicant's promises he would not seek a share of the house. On the basis of these promises, the applicant did not complete a written agreement as prescribed by s 21F of the Property (Relationships) Act ("the Act"). Section 21H allows the court to give effect to a contracting out agreement even if it does not meet the formal requirements of s 21F, if it can be proven that non-compliance with s 21F has not materially prejudiced the interests of any party to the agreement. The Judge found that as the applicant had on many occasions promised not to seek any share of the house, his interests would not be prejudiced as he had no reasonable expectation of any part of the house. It was clear that everyone involved had intended the house be protected for the children of the respondent and her ex-husband. The application failed and the applicant was to receive no share in the house. The remaining relationship property was to be divided on the usual basis. Judgment Date: 14 February 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *