Division of property — commencement of de facto relationship — loan — interest — relationship property on Māori land — chattels — insurance pay out — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 6, 8, 11, 16, 20 — Craig v Keith [2017] NZHC 1720 — TG v RL [2010] NZFLR 135 — U v U (1994) 12 FRNZ 76. The parties' marriage had ended in 2015 but they still had a number of outstanding issues relating to the division of their relationship property. These issues were the status of $350,000 paid by the respondent to the applicant before they were married, the parties' former home, an insurance pay-out made in respect of earthquake damage to that home, the respondent's home, division of family chattels, compensation to the respondent for the applicant's payment of a personal debt and the status of payments received by the applicant upon the termination of his employment in 2014. The parties disputed whether the $350,000 paid to the applicant was a gift or a loan. However, for the Family Court to have jurisdiction to make orders in relation to the money, the applicant had to prove the parties were in a relationship at the time it was given to him, otherwise the issue would have to be determined in the civil jurisdiction of the District Court. The applicant submitted a de facto relationship began when they first met in 2007; it was love at first sight, they soon began a sexual relationship and stayed together often. The respondent submitted their de facto relationship began in July 2008 after she had moved all of her possessions into the applicant's home where she lived until the end of their marriage. The Judge found the de facto relationship began in July 2008. Prior to this point the parties were independent. This meant the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders in relation to the $350,000. However, the Judge advised the money was likely a loan that the applicant needed to repay. As there had been no agreement about interest, the Judge also came to the (non-binding) conclusion that the loan was interest free. Regarding the parties' family home, the Judge found that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to determine this issue either. The home was on Māori land and therefore excluded from relationship property proceedings under s 6 of the Property (Relationships) Act ("the Act"). If the parties wanted a court to determine this issue they would need to apply to the Māori Land Court. This was the same for the earthquake insurance payout although the Judge recommended the applicant use the money to restore the house, so if the parties did apply to the Māori Land Court they would not be litigating over damaged property. It was decided that the respondent's home was her own separate property and there were no circumstances of manifest unfairness justifying the applicant receiving compensation for the property. The parties had most of their chattels valued and agreed that the applicant was to pay the respondent $117,950. Of the chattels not valued, the respondent could take what she wanted and the rest would be donated or sold and divided equally between the parties. As the applicant had repaid a personal loan from the relationship pool while the parties were together, the applicant was ordered to pay the applicant half of the amount of the repayment ($16,500). Finally, the redundancy payments made by the applicant's employer upon his termination were determined to be relationship property as the payments were made during the marriage. Leave was reserved for 21 days to allow counsel to seek further directions concerning the implementation of the judgment. Judgment Date: 21 January 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *