Reserved decision — property relationship — loan — gift — Chinese culture — Property Relationships Act 1976 ss 10(3), 18 &18B — Deng v Zheng [2022] NZSC 76 — Speller v Chong [2003] NZFLR 385 — Cai v Ni [2022] NZFC 10816 — Narayan v Narayan [2010] NZFLR 161 — Sheherd v Cartwright [1955] AC 431 — Wu v tan [2019] NZFC 1084 — Zhang v Li [2017] NZHC 129 — Warren v Gurney [1944] 2 All ER 472 (CA) — Young v Young [200] NZFLR 128 — Nelson v Meier [2016] NZHC 787 — Woolf v Kaye [2018] ZNHC 2191 — Reid v Castleton-Reid [2019] NZCA 372 — Li v Wu [2019] NZHC 2461 — Zhou v Yu [2016] ZNFLR 338 — TN v AK [2019] NZHC 2466 — Lo v Lo [2021] NZCA 693 — Chinappa v Narain [2022] NZCA 183 — Milne v Armijo HC Christchurch, CP7/88 25 August 1989 — Herbison v Waugh [2018] NZHC 3101 — Johnston v Johnston HC Auckland CIV-2004-404-5565, 28 June 2005 — Y v Y [1977] 2 NZLR 385 — E v G HC Wellington CIV-2005-485-1895, 18 May 2006 — Little v Little [2002] NZHC 601 — Chong v Speller (2004) 24 FRNZ 273, [2005] NZFLR 400 (HC) — KBH v LJDFC Gisborne FAM-2004-016-140, 21 DEcember 2005 — A v A [2008] NZFLR 297 — X v Y [2015] NZHC 1166 — Tarr v Tarr [2014] NZHC 1450 — C v M FC Timaru FA-2005-076-227, 25 August 2006 — Bullians v Bullians HC Hamilton CIV-2005-419-1283, 7 December 2005 — Magon v Lester [2018] NZFC 6843 RPB v CRH [2012] NZFC 1997 — H v H FC nelson FAM-2005-042-527, 29 March 2007 — Zhou v Yu [2015] NZFC 7668 — Harmer v Thomas CIV-2006-409-002615 HC Christchurch, 5 June 2007 — Clarkson v Slegers [2021] NZFC 6401. The parties had separated with no children. During their relationship the parties purchased two properties, a residential property and a motel. Both properties were purchased using monetary advances provided by the respondent's parents. The main issue was whether the advances provided by the respondent's parents were a gift or a loan. The appellant claimed that the advances were gifts and that the residential property was her separate property. The respondent claimed that the advances were loans and the residential property were to be shared equally. The Court considered the parties Chinese culture with regards to written evidence and familial obligations. The Courts found that the advances were loans as there were oral declarations made at the time and this has been affirmed that the advances were meant to be loans. The advances were also respondent's parents' life savings which indicated that the advances meant to be paid back. The Court also determined that the residential property was relationship property. Judgment Date: 5 April 2023. * * * Note: names have been changed to comply with legal requirements. * * *