Relationship property — de facto relationship — division of property— enduring power of attorney — Property (Relationships) Act 1976 ss 2, 11, 11A, 11B, 12, 13, 14, 18(a), 18(b), 18(c), 18(d), 18(e), 18(f), 18(g) 18(h), 18A, 21A, 20E, 21F, 21G, 21J, 21O, 23 & 25 — C v B [2015] NZCA 421, [2015] NZFLR 863 — Warring v Wright HC Blenheim CIV-2008-406-182, 26 March 2009 — Martin v Martin [1979] NZLR 97 (CA) — Castle v Castle [1977] 2 NZLR 97 (SC) — Joseph v Johansen (1993) 10 FRNZ 302 — De Malmanche v De Malmanche [2002] 2 NZLR 838, (2002) 2 FRNZ 145 (HC) — J v J (2005) 25 FRNZ 1 (CA) — Turner v Churcher [2019] NZHC 2018 — Bowden v Bowden [2016] NZHC 1201, [2017] NZFLR 56 — Venter v Trenberth [ 2015] NZHC 545, [2015] NZFLR 571. This was an application for orders determining the parties' relationship property entitlements. The parties had previously been in a de facto relationship, and they had signed a relationship property agreement where certain property such as their former home and all vehicles were the respondent's separate property. The agreement also said that any other property was owned by whoever held the title. The respondent had activated an enduring power of attorney as he no longer had the capacity to manage his affairs. A jet boat was found to be the respondent's separate property. The applicant had taken $20,000 worth of the house chattels while $5000 remained in the house. The applicant's superannuation contribution was hard to determine due to lack of evidence, therefore the Judge allocated $5000 for relationship property. The Judge decided that the respondent's superannuation of $136,645 was also relationship property. The applicant had taken $20,993 from the relationship pool for her own benefit, and the Judge required her to pay this amount to the respondent. The Judge found that the respondent's higher financial contribution throughout their relationship was not enough to depart from the equal sharing of property. However, there was a significant amount of money from the respondent's family trust, his medical disability and pre-relationship contribution to the insurance policy where an equal division would not be just. Therefore there were extraordinary circumstances to order a departure from equal sharing of property. The overall outcome was an 80/20 division to the respondent's favour. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $63,903 for her entitlement of the relationship property. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $16,794 as compensation. The court costs were to be paid equally. Judgment Date: 29 September 2022