Belkin & Ming [2023] FedCFamC2F 1630

Belkin & Ming [2023] FedCFamC2F 1630

Background Details

• Applicant: the female partner
• Respondent: the male partner
• Type of Relationship: De facto
• Duration: Approximately 4 years, from late 2013 to March 2018.
• Ages at Judgment: Applicant 34 years, Respondent 36 years.

Children

• Children from Relationship: One child, aged 6.
• Other Children: The applicant has a child aged 14 from a previous relationship. The respondent has a child aged 1, born after separation in his new relationship.

Initial Financial Positions

• Applicant:

  • Suburb F property purchased in 2012 for $307,000 with her former partner.
  • Superannuation balance of approximately $12,000.
  • Motor Vehicle 1, valued at $20,000, purchase funded by Applicant's father.

• Respondent:

  • Superannuation balance of approximately $12,000.
  • Motor Vehicle 2 worth $5,000, $7,000 in cash, and $2,300 in a bank account.
  • Alleged personal loan of $5,000, which was denied.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The Applicant introduced the Suburb F property with initial equity of $46,000.
  • Respondent contributed significantly to renovation and maintenance, including an $8,000 inheritance spent on the family.
  • The property’s equity was used to purchase the Town O property, and the Respondent supported mortgage payments.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Applicant was primary carer for the child of the relationship and cared for her older child, whom the respondent also supported.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • Respondent made payments toward the Town O property mortgage post-separation.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Applicant continued as the primary carer for the child of the relationship.

• Dissipation of Assets:

  • Applicant disposed of some of Respondent's personal property post-separation, a matter of contention in court.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Applicant:

  • Income of approximately $1,050 per week.
  • Resides at the Suburb F property.
  • Superannuation balance of $62,061.

• Respondent:

  • Court assessed income at approximately $2,019 per week for the purposes of child support.
  • Superannuation balance of $34,350.

• Total Property Pool:

  • Valued at $540,058.
  • Suburb F property value agreed at $710,000; Applicant expressed a desire to retain this property.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Applicant's contributions assessed at 65%; Respondent at 35%, notably because of the introduction of significant equity in the Suburb F property and primary care for the child.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • 5% adjustment in favour of the applicant because of her ongoing role as primary carer (with child support owed to her) and her lower earning capacity, weighed against the respondent's support of her older child, her unjustified disposal of his property, and his new family.

• Final Division: 70% for the applicant ($378,040.60) and 30% for the respondent ($162,017.40). The applicant had the first option to keep the Suburb F property by paying the respondent $120,256.40 within 60 days; otherwise the respondent could take it, failing which it was to be sold.

Unique Aspects

• There were significant disputes over financial contributions and expenditures due to both non-disclosure issues and conflicts regarding asset management post-separation.
• Intricacies involving Respondent's non-payment of substantial child support, the considerable legal costs incurred, and Applicant’s use of refinancing to fund legal expenses.
• Attention was given to the respondent's financial contributions towards the applicant's older child and the applicant's post-separation disposal of his property.
• The Independent Children's Lawyer's application for costs was dismissed because both parties would suffer hardship.

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 between de facto partners in s 90SM(3) to (5), and the court must consider the effect of family violence on each party's contributions (s 90SM(4)(ca)) and on their current and future circumstances (s 90SM(5)(a)), and any material wastage of property (s 90SM(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.