Property relationship — defacto relationship — unequal sharing — orders for the benefit of children — post separation contribution — Property Relationships Act 1976, ss 13, 18B & 26 — Martin v Martin [1979] 1 NZLR 97 — Meikle v Meikle [1979] 1 NZLR 137 — Bradwell v Kennedy, HC Wellington CIV-2004-485-611, 23 March 2005 — Coxhead v Coxhead [1993] 2 ZNLR 397 — B v B FC Auckland FAM 2004-004-872, 9 October 2006 — Babylon v Babylon (2009) 27 FRNZ 622 — Chong v Speller [2005] NZFLR 400 — X v X [Economic disparity] [2009] NZCA 399 — Little v Little [2002] NZHC 601 — Rose v Rose [2009] NZSC 46. The parties separated from a de facto relationship and they had two children. The main issue was which party was to retain the family home and how much they had to pay the other for their share. There was a presumption that parties were entitled to equal share in relationship property unless there were extraordinary circumstances. The respondent and the children had occupied the property since the separation. The respondent who was also solely responsible for the property payments had claimed for unequal sharing. The respondent submitted that the deposit for the property was from an inheritance of $70,000 from her relative. However, this did not meet the high threshold of extraordinary circumstances to depart from equal sharing. Both parties made claims for several contributions post relationship. The applicant claimed for occupation rent and rent payments received by the respondent. The respondent made claims for the post separation reduction of mortgage principal, other outgoings, improvements to the property and care of their autistic child. The Court found the applicant had valid entitlements for some occupation rent and for rent payments for the property, however this was cancelled out by the respondent's entitlements to the outgoings and reduced mortgage principal. The Court noted that the respondent had had sole responsibility over their child who required intensive care and had foregone pursuing paid employment. Each party was entitled to $201,000 which was half of the equity in the property. If the respondent were to retain the property, she needed to pay $196,289.50. If the applicant were to retain the property he needed to pay $252,000 to the respondent. This included $4,710.50 to equalise the division of other relationship property and $46,289.50 for post separation contributions. Judgment Date: 12 May 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *