Relationship property division — family home — company shares — bank accounts — extraordinary circumstances — occupation rent — chattels — unequal division — contributions to relationship property — repugnant to justice — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1, 8, 9A, 10, 11, 13, 14-17A & 18 — Martin v Martin [1979] 1 NZLR 97 CA — V v V HC Wellington CIV-2006-485-764, 8 December 2006 — S v W [2006] 2 NZLR 669 HC — Joseph v Johansen (1993) 10 FRNZ 302 (CA) — Brown v Starke [2016] NZFC 7132 — Venter v Trenberth [2015] NZHC 545 — Vann v Fay [2016] NZFC 1676 — Kidd v Russell [2018] NZHC 3032. The parties appeared in Court to resolve the division of relationship property following five years of marriage. The applicant was from the United States of America while the respondent was a New Zealander. The main issues were whether company shares owned by the respondent were separate property, the status of funds in bank accounts and whether there should be unequal division. The Judge was satisfied that all funds in the parties' bank accounts were relationship property. The respondent had made all of the accounts joint by putting them under both his and the applicant's name. The company shares were separate property as the respondent had owned them prior to the relationship and no efforts ever went in to increasing their value. The respondent sought equal division under s 13 of the Property (Relationships) Act. Usually there is a presumption that relationship property should be divided equally between parties on a 50/50 basis. Under s 13 a judge may order unequal division if there are extraordinary circumstances and equal division would be repugnant to justice. The Judge decided there were extraordinary circumstances as the respondent had contributed around $1,778,998 to the relationship property pool (about 85 per cent). The Judge was also satisfied it would be repugnant to justice to order equal division as that sum represented the respondent's life's work, he was elderly and was not in a position to better his circumstances and the parties had been married for a relatively short time. An order was made for 70/30 division in favour of the respondent. Judgment Date: 22 January 2020. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *