Bardes & Mumford [2024] FedCFamC2F 247

Bardes & Mumford [2024] FedCFamC2F 247

Background Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Approximately 20 years. Cohabitation began in 1999, married in 2006, and separated on 15 February 2020.
• Ages at Judgment: Not stated; the court found the parties were of a similar age.

Children

• Children from Relationship:
  • Three children, aged 14, 13 and 11.
• Custody Arrangements:
  • Elder two children live with the respondent wife.
  • Younger child lives in a week about arrangement.
• Special Needs or Circumstances: Reunification counselling ordered for the husband and elder children.

Initial Financial Positions

• Financial positions at the start of the relationship were minimal, with both parties being young and without significant assets.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:
  • The wife’s parents contributed a gift of $14,000 for the first home and a significant sum of $50,000 in 2017.
  • The husband’s mother loaned money for a car purchase.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • The wife was primarily responsible for homemaking and caring for the children, especially in the early years when the husband was completing his studies.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:
  • The husband paid child support ($330/week), private school fees ($17,000/year), and contributed to extracurricular activities, borrowing money to meet some of these expenses.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • The wife continued as primary carer for the two older children.
  • The mortgage has been placed into hardship several times by the wife, who took over payments post separation.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:

  • Income reduced following business downturn.
  • Business interests significantly contribute to the asset pool, valued by a single expert at $786,172.
  • Superannuation included in settlement orders.

• Wife:

  • Bank balance includes recent $45,000 trust distribution.
  • Responsible for managing day-to-day expenses and mortgage.

• Property Pool:

  • Disputed valuation of husband’s business interests.
  • Total asset pool calculated at $1,310,748.06, including disputed real estate and vehicle values.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions: Both parties’ contributions during the 20-year relationship were found to be equal.
• Future Needs Adjustments: A 5% adjustment in favour of the wife considering:
  • Her role as primary caregiver.
  • Greater disparity in income earning capacity.
  • Primary care of the children and related living costs.
• Final Division: 55% to the wife, valued at $720,911.43. After allowing for the property she already held, the husband was ordered to pay her $421,084.60 as a lump sum, with a default of instalments of $50,000 each financial year and, failing those, an attempt to sell the business.

Unique Aspects

• Disputes over the valuation and sale of business interests were prominent, with the husband reluctant to sell due to potential control issues with business partners.
• Complex financial ties to businesses and family trusts contributed to the difficulty in a straightforward division of assets.
• Final solution involved potential instalment payments due to financial liquidity constraints.

Summary

The case involves detailed financial intricacies due to business interests and trust distributions, alongside typical familial and post-separation financial responsibilities. The division recognises equal contributions but adjusts for future needs, particularly considering caregiving responsibilities and earning capacity. The orders include provisions for instalment payments due to anticipated difficulties in settling amounts as lump sums.

The law since this decision

This case was decided before 10 June 2025. From that date the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) sets out the steps for a property settlement in s 79(3) to (5), and the court must consider the effect of family violence on each party's contributions (s 79(4)(ca)) and on their current and future circumstances (s 79(5)(a)), and any material wastage of property (s 79(5)(d)). In Western Australia, a property case between married couples is decided under that Act in the Family Court of Western Australia. A case between de facto partners in Western Australia is decided under the Family Court Act 1997 (WA), which has not adopted those 2025 changes.