Earlman & Blazena [2023] FedCFamC2F 922

Earlman & Blazena [2023] FedCFamC2F 922

Relationship Details

• Type: De facto
• Duration: Approximately 8 years. The couple started living together in 2013, and the relationship ended in February 2022.
• Ages at Judgment: Applicant (male partner) 54, Respondent (female partner) 48.

Children

• Children from Relationship: None.
• Children from Previous Relationships: The applicant has a 17-year-old son from a previous relationship. The respondent has two adult children from a previous relationship.

Initial Financial Positions

• Applicant:

  • Superannuation balance of $86,575.17.
  • Owned a house, which was repossessed by the bank due to debts exceeding $318,000.
  • Claimed various assets (vehicles and a bike) worth around $50,000, which were mostly reported stolen. Only some vehicles were returned and collectively sold for $6,200.

• Respondent:

  • Approximately $50,000 in pre-relationship superannuation, later depleted by a TPD Payment.
  • Owned a vehicle valued at $12,000 and savings of about $3,000.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The applicant initially contributed through earnings from his full-time trade work until redundancy in 2014, resulting in a severance payment of $30,000 and a further payment of $7,000.
  • The respondent's Total Permanent Disablement (TPD) Payment of approximately $700,000 in late 2019 and early 2020 was crucial, used to buy the Town D property mortgage-free and other assets.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The respondent ceased working in late 2016 after a serious diagnosis, and has relied on a disability pension since.
  • The applicant became the respondent's carer after 2016, which reduced his earning capacity.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• The respondent's illness-related expenses continued post-separation.
• The applicant lives in Motor Vehicle 1, rent-free on private property in exchange for caretaking work.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Property Pool: $651,728 in total, including:
  • Town D property valued at $465,000 (in the respondent's name).
  • The applicant's superannuation: $142,028.26.
  • Motor Vehicle 2, retained by the respondent, valued at $38,200.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Assessed as 75:25 in favour of the respondent, reflecting her significant TPD Payment contribution.
  • In dollar terms: the respondent's contribution $488,796 and the applicant's $162,932.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • A further 5% in favour of the respondent, giving an assessed entitlement of 80% to 20%.
  • Considerations included the stark contrast in health and capacity to work, and her dependency on secure housing, against the applicant's work capacity and lack of secure housing.

• Final Division:

  • The respondent keeps the Town D property and Motor Vehicle 2; Motor Vehicle 1 is transferred to the applicant, who keeps his superannuation. This gives effect to the parties' substantial agreement and divides the pool about 77.2% to the respondent and 22.8% to the applicant, which the court found just and equitable.

Unique Aspects

• The respondent's serious illness and resulting TPD Payment were pivotal to asset acquisition and division. (The court noted there was no evidence that her conditions are now terminal.)
• The adjustment recognised the disparity in health and employment prospects and the respondent's dependency on the property for her financial security.
• Nearly all of what the applicant retains is superannuation, which he cannot access until retirement; the court took this into account in calibrating the 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 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.