Relationship property proceedings — gifts — post-separation contributions — economic disparity — sale order — costs — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1N, 2B, 2D, 15, 18B, 19, 25-32 & 33 — Family Court Rules 2002, r 207 — District Court Rules 2014, rr 14.2–14.12 — Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185, [2018] 1 NZLR 507 — Benseman v Ball [2007] NZFLR 127 (HC) — B v F [2010] NZFLR 67 (HC) — C v C HC Auckland CIV-2007-419-1313, 26 June 2008 — Chong v Speller (2004) 24 FRNZ 273, [2005] NZFLR 400 (HC) — Vaifo’ou v Vaifo’ou [2023] NZHC 3092 — R v C Levin FAM-2005-031-155, 17 June 2008 — Martin v Martin (1982) 1 NZLR 307 (HC) — Johanson v Johanson (1993) FRNZ 578 (CA) — Hau v Hau [2018] NZHC 881 — Zhou v Yue [2019] NZHC 2167 — Johnson v Johnson [2023] NZCA 566 — Wu v Tan [2023] NZHC 3747 — Su v Shui [2023] NZFC 3368 — B v B [2004] NZFLR 653 (FC) — SB v DH Auckland CIV-2011-404-1005, 4 October 2011 — M v G FC Wellington FAM-2003-085-002431, 28 May 2004 — Aplin v Lagan (1993) 10 FRNZ 562 (HC). These proceedings were to settle various relationship property issues: the date of the start of their relationship; whether the house where they had been living was the "family home" and whether the respondent's half-share was divisible as relationship property; post-separation contributions; balances of KiwiSaver and bank accounts; the status of various debts; and whether any compensation was payable to the applicant for economic disparity. The Court had to determine what orders to make, in particular with regards to the sale of the house, and an order as to costs. The applicant and first respondent had been in a relationship, subsequently married, and had two children together. Following separation, the first respondent stayed living in the house, and the applicant moved out and had principal care of the children. The second respondent was the first respondent's mother. She owned a half-share of the house in dispute. $480,000 had been borrowed by the first respondent from his mother; $200,000 directly and $280,000 by way of bank loan in the second respondent's name. The first respondent submitted he was holding his half-share of the house for the benefit of his mother. The Court considered the evidence provided and concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the applicant and first respondent's relationship began some four years before they were married. The start of their relationship had some significance to the applicant's claim for economic disparity. The Court determined that the house in dispute was the "family home" as defined in the Property (Relationships) Act (PRA), although limited to the first respondent's half-share in the property. The Court considered it appropriate to exercise its discretion to make a post-separation contribution award in favour of the applicant. On the "economic disparity" claim, the Court accepted that there was a causal link between the applicant's potential income and the division of functions during the marriage, as she was and had been the primary carer for the parties' children. However, the Court concluded that there was not likely to be a significant disparity in each party's income or living standards as a result of this. The Court also made adjustments with regards to the bank account and KiwiSaver balances, and half the proceeds of sale of the vehicle. With regards to the amounts of money asserted by the first and second respondent to be loans, the Court concluded that the money was given rather than loaned and the applicant was not required to account for any part of it. Under section 33 of the PRA, the Court has ancillary powers to make any order necessary to give effect to orders made under ss 25-28 of the PRA. The Court made an order for sale of the family home, with specified conditions. The Court also made orders as to how the net proceeds of sale were to be applied. Finally, the Court made an order for costs on a 2B scale in the applicant's favour. Judgment Date: 4 September 2024. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *