Both wanted the family home. Her inheritance had paid down its loans

Mr and Ms Parsa married in 1996 and were together for about 20 years. They had four sons. He was self-employed and the main earner. She was the main parent and worked part-time. In 2006 they bought the property that became the family home for $785,000, and he acted as owner-builder.

By 2009 money was tight. Ms Parsa inherited from two uncles and put $510,500 into the loans on the home, and the home loan was paid off in June 2013. That month, at his request, their credit limit was raised from $240,000 to $500,000. He spent $300,000 to $400,000 of it on shares and other investments, which largely failed. By the time they separated in 2016, about $600,000 was owing. He then withdrew another $78,100 and did not keep up the repayments. She paid about $128,572 in interest from her inheritance.

Both wanted to keep the house. Justice Tyson used two pools. The first, worth $676,367 after debts, held the house, valued at $1,150,000, and money he had withdrawn, or raised by selling shares, after separation, which was added back. The second was $882,380 left from an aunt's estate, which she received more than two years after separation and to which he made no contribution. Her inheritance from her uncles was 74% of the first pool, and after separation she had carried the children and the loans. The judge assessed her contributions to the first pool at 68.5%, and the second pool as entirely hers.

Looking ahead, he earned little and had no super, while she had money and might benefit from her mother's trust. The judge moved 10% of the combined pools to him. The final division was $1,184,648 (76%) to her and $374,099 (24%) to him, counting the money he had taken.

The house went to her, on condition that she refinance the loans. She had lived there since separation, had serviced the borrowings and had the means to refinance. He had no evidence that he could. The judge proposed that she pay him $140,019 within two months, less $10,000 he owed her.