Relationship property division — valuation of chattels and vehicles — post-separation contributions — occupational rent — vesting of property — compensation for economic disparity — personal debts — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 2, 15, 18, 20, 21, 25 & 33 — Cuff v Cuff [2004] NZFLR 992 — B v M [2005] NZFLR 730 — GM v JL [2005] 24 FRNZ 835 — Public Trust v Whyman [2005] 2 NZLR 696 — Herbison v Waugh [2018] NZHC 3101 — SAS v GJM (FC Invercargill, FAM-092-755-03, 8 June 2004) — E v G (HC Wellington, CIV-2005-485-1895, 18 May 2006) — C v C (HC Auckland, CIV-2007-419-1313, 26 June 2008) — King v King (FC Lower Hutt, FP 032-105-02, 11 November 2003) — Griffiths v Griffiths [2012] NZFLR 327 — Knight v Knight (FC Manukau, FP092/755/03, 8 June 2004) — Scott v Williams [2017] NZSC 185; [2018] 1 NZLR 507 — X v X [Economic Disparity] [2009] NZCA 399 — de Malmanche v de Malmanche [2002] 2 NZLR 838. The parties were disputing a variety of relationship property division issues. They had been in a de facto relationship for around 12 years, had no children, and had purchased two properties and various other chattels throughout their relationship. Given a lack of evidence, the Judge ordered each party retain the chattels currently in their possession. Each party had one property vested in them. The applicant was vested with the family home as the respondent would not likely have been able to pay out the applicant and then take over the mortgage. Each party was entitled for occupation rent for periods not spent living in the family home as well as a half share of child support each party paid for their children to other people. The respondent also applied for a payment on the grounds of economic disparity. For an economic disparity claim to succeed the party has to show there is a link between their financial situation and the division of functions in the relationship. The respondent could not prove this, and the Judge found the difference in the parties' financial situations was a consequence of their individual skills and training, not anything to do with the relationship. No orders were made as to costs. Judgment Date: 17 December 2019. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *