Relationship property proceedings — family home — departure from equal sharing — gifts — post-separation contributions — orders for benefit of children — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1N, 2, 8, 10, 13, 18 & 26 — N v N (Relationship property loan) [2010] NZFLR 161 — Woolf v Kaye & Clark (CIV 2015-404-1043) [2018] NZHC 2191 — F v F [2017] NZHC 1450 — Ellis v Ellis [2008] 27 FRNZ 266 — Bowden v Bowden [2016] NZHC 1201. The applicant and first respondent in these proceedings had been married and had one child together. This hearing was to determine various relationship property (PRA) matters: which of the two properties was the "family home"; whether the money advanced from the first respondent's parents (the second and third respondents) which went towards the two properties were loans or a gifts; whether there were exceptional circumstances to warrant departure from equal sharing; if so, how the relationship property was to be divided; whether any post-separation contributions should be made; and whether any order for the benefit of the parties' child should be made. During the course of the relationship, the applicant had worked for a modest salary which went towards the couple's day-to-day expenses. The respondent was a student and mostly did not work. All other finances were provided by the second and third respondents, totaling $874,000, to the couple, part of which was used to acquire assets. Evidence provided to the Court established that the second and third respondents had post-dated various promissory notes claiming that the advances were loans rather than gifts. The Court found that the advances to the couple were gifts, with the exception of the money advanced for the first respondent to purchase the apartment. However, the Court also found that the apartment was the family home at date of separation. The Court then considered the issue of the exception to equal sharing, and found because of the relatively short duration of the relationship and disparity in contributions towards the relationship (mainly funded by the first respondents' parents), there were extraordinary circumstances. Because the apartment had been the first respondent's separate property, but became relationship property because of the effects of the PRA, the lifestyle they were able to live and provision of funds by the first respondents' parents, the Court found that a 50/50 split would be repugnant to justice. The Court made an order that the relationship property was to be split 65/35 per cent basis in favour of the first respondent. The Court also made a post-separation compensation order in favour of the applicant for the first respondent's use of the second property. Due to the modest amount of relationship property to be split, the Court declined to make an order settling relationship property for the benefit of their child. Judgment Date: 16 November 2018. * * * Note: Names have been changed to comply with legal requirements * * *