Heeney & Eynas [2022] FedCFamC2F 1514

Heeney & Eynas [2022] FedCFamC2F 1514

Background Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: 14 years. Cohabitation commenced in 1996, married in 2003, and separated in July 2010.
• Ages: Husband 66 years, Wife 54 years.

Children

• Children from Relationship:
  • A daughter, born in 1997, now an adult.
• Children from Previous Relationships:
  • Wife's son, born in 1989.
  • Husband's son, born in 1992.
  • Each party helped care for the other's child.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Owned B Street, Suburb C property since 1976.
  • Various household goods, Motor Vehicle 4, savings, and superannuation with Company U.
  • Credit card debts totaling approximately $30,000.
  • Mortgage on B Street property of $153,000.

• Wife:

  • Motor vehicle valued at approximately $2,000.
  • Savings of approximately $5,000.
  • No other significant assets or debt.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband made all mortgage payments, council rates, water rates, and other outgoings on the B Street property.
  • Redundancy payment received by the husband was applied to the mortgage and other family debts.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife as primary homemaker and caregiver for the parties' daughter.
  • Wife involved in children’s activities and household duties.
  • Both parties contributed to home improvements detailed below.

• Homemaker/Parenting Contributions:

  • Husband worked long hours, wife as primary caregiver.
  • Both involved in children's activities after work and school hours.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband continued to meet all the outgoings of B Street property.
  • Husband provided financial support for the parties' daughter, who lived with him full-time from 14 to 20, and to some extent the wife's son.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife continued her involvement with the parties' daughter.

• Actions:

  • The husband said the parties agreed after separation that the wife would take about $25,000 and a car in full settlement, and that he complied. The wife disputed the terms. No orders or binding financial agreement were ever made.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:

  • Current income approximately $147,500 per annum plus potential performance incentives.
  • Superannuation of $348,500.19 in two accounts with Super Fund 1.
  • Owns B Street property valued at $1,550,000 with mortgage balance of $647,885.
  • An inheritance from his father received in 2021, long after separation ($150,000 in cash and $30,963 of cryptocurrency). The court kept this in a separate pool, to which the wife made no contribution, and left it with the husband.

• Wife:

  • Current income approximately $90,000 per annum.
  • Superannuation balance of $76,917.55.

• Property Pool:

  • The court used three pools: the husband's inheritance ($180,963), superannuation ($425,417.74) and the remaining property ($918,159 net).
  • The B Street property, valued at $1,550,000, is the major asset. Its value rose by $725,000 in about two years before the hearing, with no improvements by either party.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Husband's contributions assessed at 85%, Wife's at 15% for the general property pool, giving heavy weight to the husband's ownership of the B Street property for about 20 years before the relationship and its later rise in value. There were no historical valuations of the property.
  • For the superannuation pool the wife was allowed 35%.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • An additional 2% adjustment (about $18,363) in the wife's favour in the general property pool, weighing factors including her health, the parties' ages and incomes, and the husband's financial commitments.
  • Final division: the wife receives 17% of the general property pool through a payment of $145,990.03 within 60 days (or the home is sold), and a superannuation split of $71,978.65.

Unique Aspects

• The substantial increase in the value of B Street property post-separation was a significant factor, and benefited the husband as its long-term owner.
• The absence of a binding financial agreement post-separation impacted the husband’s claims.
• Consideration of husband's compliance with an asserted oral agreement and wife's contested claims regarding settlement terms influenced the outcome.

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.