Relationship property — division of property — trusts — Property (Relationship) Act 1976, ss 15, 20, 33(3)(m), 37, 44C & 182 — Family Proceedings Act 1980, s 182 — Scott v Williams [2018] 1 NZLR 507 (SC) — Thompson v Thompson [2015] 1 NZLR 593 (SC) — Morris v Morris (1981) 5 MPC 99 — Boskett v Boskett [2018] NZHC 1596 — Arthur v Wood [2017] NZFC 1072 — Webb v Webb [2012] NZLR 376 (PC) — Ronayne v Coombs [2016] NZFLR 672 (CA) — Dyas v Elliott (2010) 11 NZCPR 252 (HC) — Jackson v Guo (2008) 9 NZCPR 850 (HC) — Simpson v Sax [2015] NZAR 1210 (HC) — A v A FC Hamilton FAM-203-219-588, 29 March 2007 — Gosbee v Gosbee [2020] NZHC 1001 — Underhill v Underhill [2015] NZFC 10432 — X v X [economic disparity] [2010] 1 NZLR 601 (CA) — Ward v Ward [2010] 2 NZLR 31 (SC) — Clayton v Clayton (Claymark Trust) [2016] 1 NZLR 590 (SC) — Preston v Preston & Ors [2012] NZSC 154 — C v C (No.2) [2016] NZFLR 908 — Higgins v Higgins [2020] NZFLR 435 (FC) — Clayton v Clayton [Vaughan Road Property Trust] 1 NZLR 551 (SC) — Picadilly v Picadilly [2019] NZFLR 393 (FC) — Bethell v Bethell [2018] NZHC 3171 — Oldfield v Oldfield [2020] NZHC 8 — Chrystall v Chrystall [1993] NZFLR 772 — Benyon v Benyon (1890) 15 PD 54. This was a reserved judgment for the division of relationship property. There were seven issues to be decided on. Issue one was the value of relationship property and trust assets. The property in question was a bach owned by the family trust, and the parties did not agree on the value of the bach. The Judge found the applicant's expert witness on the valuation credible, and did not give weight to the valuation of the respondent's expert. The total valuation of the bach was $935,000 which would adjust the assets of the trust to $7,286,819. The second issue was the applicant's rental property. The respondent claimed that she was entitled to a share in the value or the increase in value of the property. There was an interim document agreed by the parties negotiating how they would live after the separation. It stated that custody for their children was to be shared and that they would continue to live in the family home with the respondent. The applicant was to find his own accommodation which would be a part of the family trust. The contention was whether the respondent was required to pay an occupation rental for the family home. The Judge found that the property was the applicant's separate property, but there was a repayable sum to the trust. The third issue was the US capital gains tax. The capital gains tax was incurred because of the sale of the family home and because the respondent retained her US citizenship. The applicant claimed that the tax was the applicant's own separate liability and that he did not receive any benefit from it. However, the Judge found that the tax debt was relationship property as the respondent retained her citizenship partly because their son was educated in the US and lived there; it was not just voluntary or for her own benefit. Issue four was occupation rental for the family home where the respondent and the children lived after separation. The Judge found that he had no jurisdiction to order an award for compensation. Issue five was compensation for contributions and post separation support. The applicant claimed compensation for $374,000 for post separation contributions. The Judge found that it would not be just to order the compensation the applicant had made, as his contributions were done freely post separation. Issue six was a lump sum compensation if the Judge found that one party was likely to be significantly better off because of the division of functions in the marriage. The respondent sought $656,000 for income disparity while the applicant claimed the appropriate sum was $334,000. It was accepted that there was significant disparity between the parties. The Judge found that $660,000 was a reasonable level, with a $170,000 deduction for the spousal maintenance that was already received by the respondent. The final amount for income disparity was $490,000 and this was to be paid from the applicant's share of the relationship property. Issue seven was the Judge's discretion for further inquiries on the agreement between parties. It was decided that there would be an equal division of the remaining trust assets; however the family trust itself was not relationship property. Before the equal division NZD $231,386 was to be paid to the respondent for what was owed to her. Relationship chattels were divided equally. Judgment Date: 24 December 2021.