Relationship property dispute — self-represented parties — contracting out agreement — post-separation contributions — occupation rent — economic disparity — dissipation of relationship property — materially diminished value — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M, 1N, 11-14A, 15, 18B, 18C, 20, 20D, 20E, 21 & 21A — Family Court Act 1980, s 12A(4) —MJT v DAW [2006] NZFLR 464 — Chong v Speller [2005] NZFLR 400 (HC) — Scott v Williams [2016] NZCA 356, [2016] NZFLR 499 — Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185, [2018] 1 NZLR 507 — Griffiths v Griffiths [2012] NZFLR 327 (HC) — Butcher v Haack [2012] NZHC 2991 — C v C FC Christchurch FAM 2005-009-002359, 7 June 2007 — Devery v Manukonga HC Auckland CIV-2003-404-005871, 21 May 2004 — E v G HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1895, 18 May 2006 — Fischbach v Bonnar [2002] 22 FRNZ 192, [2002] NZFLR 705 — Hutt v Hodge [2007] NZFLR 438 — GFM v JAM [2014] NZSC 32, [2014] NZFLR 599 — PGO v MAB [2010] NZHC 1652, [2011] NZFLR 232 — M v B [Economic Disparity] [2006] 3 NZLR 660, (2006) 25 FRNZ 171 (CA) — X v X [2009] NZCA 399 — Gosbee v Gosbee [2020] NZHC 1001. This was a substantive hearing to determine certain matters relating to the parties' property relationship dispute. The parties, who were self-represented in the proceedings, had been married and had two children together, and upon separation the respondent had remained living in the family home while the applicant moved into rental accommodation. The claim by the applicant was for compensation under s 18B of the Property (Relationships) Act in respect of: her care of the children post separation; for occupation rent in respect of the respondent’s occupation of the family home from date of separation to the date of hearing; or the benefits received by the respondent from sole occupation and the foregoing of her share of capital. The applicant also claimed for an adjustment under s 18C for diminution in value of the family home since separation; and a s 15 lump sum payment for economic disparity; and to resolve other incidental property matters not agreed to at the conclusion of the hearing, including status of the applicant’s credit card debt at separation. The Judge determined that occupational rent payment of $52,500 was payable to the applicant as she had been paying market rent on accommodation since separation. On the issue of diminution in value of the family home since separation, the test was whether the value of the home was materially diminished by the deliberate action or inaction of the respondent. Several valuations of the property were provided at various stages post-separation which showed the lack of maintenance of the house had caused its value to drop. While maintenance during the marriage had only been done on an as-needed basis, there had been a significant water leak post-separation which had not been addressed by the respondent. There was an obligation on the occupying party to maintain the family home and not allow the parties' asset to diminish in value. The Judge awarded the applicant $20,000 for this. On the economic disparity issue, the Judge rejected the applicant's submission that the economic disparity was wholly due to the division of functions in the marriage; however the Judge concluded that it was in some way responsible in that due to the applicant caring for the children she chose roles with familyfriendly hours. The respondent also had a much higher salary which went to show his higher standard of living. The Judge awarded the applicant $30,000 which was the difference between what she was earning and what she could have earned. The Judge also concluded that the applicant's credit card debt was relationship debt as the card had been used for predominantly family-related expenses. Judgment Date: 4 December 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *