She kept the family home. He kept his super

Mr and Ms Vieri married in 2001 and had two children. Before the marriage he had bought two properties of his own, and in mid-2000 the couple bought the house that became the family home. He sold his two properties in 2000 and 2003, and about $124,000 from them went into the home's mortgage, which was paid off in 2005.

She stopped full-time work when their first child was born and later worked part-time, while he was the main earner. In 2010 they spent $200,000 extending and renovating the home, using savings, a $120,000 loan and $60,000 in gifts to her from her parents and grandmother. They separated in May 2014. She stayed in the home with the children and paid the mortgage. He moved in with his parents.

Both agreed she should have the house. The fight was over the rest. He wanted her to pay him $250,000 in cash, with a split of his super to even things up. She wanted 70% overall and no super split. The house was worth $635,000 with $71,821 owing, and the pool was $901,459, including $230,465 in his super and $51,760 in hers.

Justice Duncanson assessed contributions at 55% to him and 45% to her, mainly because of the money from his two properties. The judge then moved 15% to her for three reasons: her care of the children, his greater earning capacity, and the fact that much of his share would be super he might not reach for 20 years. The result was 60% to her and 40% to him.

Under the orders the judge proposed, she would keep the home, refinance the loan into her own name and pay him $103,131 within 30 days. He would keep his super, with no split. The judge said keeping the home was important for the children's security, while he had the income, and the funds for a deposit, to buy a home of his own.