Dyer & Kaeser [2023] FedCFamC2F 452

Dyer & Kaeser [2023] FedCFamC2F 452

Relationship Details

• Type: De facto relationship
• Duration: Cohabitation commenced in 2004 and ended with separation in February 2020 (the judgment also says February 2022 at one point, but its account of events points to 2020). Approximately 16 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 45, Wife 41

Children

• Children from Relationship: Three children, aged 15, 13, and 11.
• Parenting Arrangements: Children live with the wife and spend time with the husband in Brisbane at least twice a year under final parenting orders.
• Additional Notes: Wife has re-partnered; the husband has not.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:
  • Claimed a $250,000 initial contribution and $40,000 in cash, tools and a car, without reliable evidence.
• Finding: Neither party had significant assets at the start of cohabitation; the assets were built up during the relationship.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:
  • The husband worked as a tradesman, facing financial difficulties around 2015.
  • The wife worked as a public servant, taking time off for childcare.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • The wife contributed significantly as a homemaker and primary caregiver.
  • The husband’s claims of rent-free living as a financial contribution were not substantiated.
  • Renovation works performed by the husband on properties were considered compensatory for rent, not stand-alone contributions.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:
  • The husband claimed large debts to family members, including $267,000 to his brother supported by letters of demand. The court inferred the letters were written for the proceedings, was not satisfied the debts exist or would be pursued, and left them out of the balance sheet.
• Non-financial Contributions:
  • Wife continues as the primary caregiver, receiving no child support from the husband since separation.
• Asset Dissipation: Husband's withdrawal of $9,945 from superannuation was added back to the asset pool due to questions about its use.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:
  • Dependent on Centrelink payments.
  • Alleged debts to family members disputable.
• Wife:
  • Employed part-time, earning $831 weekly.
  • Receives Family Tax Benefit; earns additional income from employment.
• Property Pool:
  • The parties' estimates differed widely depending on the alleged debts. Without the debts, and with the $9,945 add-back, the court's net pool was about $628,253, mainly the B Street property (valued at $820,000).
  • The husband's company and family trust were put at nil by agreement.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:
  • Financial and non-financial contributions during the relationship were equal; the wife also made a very significant post-separation contribution to the children's care.
• Future Needs Adjustments:
  • $100,000 adjustment in the wife's favour due to her role as primary caregiver and lack of child support payment.
  • Overall division of about 58% to the wife ($364,387) and 42% to the husband ($263,866).

Unique Aspects

• Debt Claims: Husband's claims of significant family loans were largely unsubstantiated, resembling entangled family financial practices.
• Health and Employment: The husband’s claimed medical conditions and inability to work were weakly supported, affecting the assessment of his earning capacity.
• Adjustment Factors: The wife lives with an employed new partner, which the court took into account under s 90SF(3).

Final Division

• Ordered that the husband pay the wife $288,969 within 60 days; otherwise, the B Street property would be sold. The payment equals 57.5% of the net equity in that property.

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 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.