Chosar & Chosar [2023] FedCFamC2F 735

Chosar & Chosar [2023] FedCFamC2F 735

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Married in 2018, separated in July 2019, approximately 1.5 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 51, Wife 39

Children

• Children from Relationship: One child, X, born in 2018.
• Children from Previous Relationships: The husband has two sons, aged 17 and 20. The wife has a daughter, aged 10.
• Special Needs or Circumstances: None noted.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Owned the Suburb F property (bought for $415,000 in 2005). Mortgage as of marriage was $410,000, now valued at $950,000.
  • Offset accounts with TT Bank ...02 with $129,000 and ...03 with $50,000.
  • Superannuation not specified.
  • Business interest in PP Pty Ltd.
  • Interest in Suburb SS property.
  • Car, other unspecified financial resources and debts included $31,000 owed to parents.

• Wife:

  • Cash from previous property settlement: approximately $280,000.
  • Car, superannuation, and shares of minimal value.
  • Two investment properties: OO Street property in Suburb NN (initially purchased at around $449,000) and Suburb LL property (purchased for $360,000).

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband made mortgage payments on the Suburb F property and was employed full-time.
  • Contributions included managing business (PP Pty Ltd), which supported the household financially.
  • From late 2017 the wife paid about $346,700 into the husband's bank account, including $250,000 from her earlier property settlement.
  • The husband paid the majority of household expenses, including the mortgages.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife was primary homemaker and childcare provider.
  • Husband assisted in household and childcare but often engaged in his profession.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband continued to reside in and pay mortgage for the Suburb F property post-separation.
  • Wife managed and financed her properties post-separation, including the sale of the OO Street property, which left a capital gains tax debt of $67,637.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife has been sole carer for the child since separation (almost four years), with minimal child support paid by the husband.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Current Income: Not clearly specified.
• Assets and Debts: Current property pool valued at $1,017,105.
  • Suburb F property (net $541,000), PP Pty Ltd ($35,000), other interests.
  • Wife's interests include Suburb LL property net of mortgage ($162,000), and proceeds from the OO Street property sale ($80,742).

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Assessed to be about equal between the parties due to substantial financial and non-financial contributions by both.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Adjusted 10% in the wife's favour under s 75(2), because she will have the primary care of the young child with minimal child support, the husband's income earning capacity is probably greater, and the husband failed to explain post-separation movements of money (at least $145,232 of borrowed funds and about $167,000 through a company account) that may be available to him as a financial resource.
  • Adjustments resulted in a 60% share to the wife and 40% to the husband of the net assets.

• Final Division: Wife awarded 60% of net property pool, amounting to $610,263. The husband retains 40% or $406,842. The husband keeps the Suburb F property and must pay the wife $435,158 within eight weeks, failing which the property is to be sold.

Unique Aspects

• The court found that the husband had not explained substantial post-separation movements of money, and treated them as a possible financial resource in the s 75(2) adjustment.
• The wife's large payments into the husband's account early in the relationship weighed against the husband's property and income in the contributions assessment, which ended up about equal.
• Safety concerns from the husband's assault on the wife while she held the child, and a police-sought apprehended violence order in 2019, were addressed in the parenting proceedings.

Key Takeaways:

• The wife was granted the larger share because of her care of the child, the disparity in earning capacity, and the husband's unexplained funds.
• Unexplained movements of money can be weighed as a financial resource of the party who made them.
• Structured schedules for parental responsibilities were established to cater to the child's best interests.

This case highlighted the complexity of financial, caregiving, and emotional contributions post-separation, affecting final property and parental orders.

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.