Jun & Genyu [2023] FedCFamC2F 395

Jun & Genyu [2023] FedCFamC2F 395

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Court: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Judge Boymal, 6 April 2023
• Duration: The parties began living together in about mid-2016, married in 2018 and separated on 14 June 2020, after the wife obtained an intervention order against the husband. Total duration approximately 4 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband 32, Wife 34
• Parties: The husband's mother was joined as the second respondent, seeking repayment of money she and the husband's father had advanced for the home.

Children

• Children from Relationship: One child, born in 2020, aged 3.
• Special Needs: The child has a developmental delay and Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Initial Financial Positions

• Other than the husband's Collection 1, both parties had only nominal assets when the relationship began. The husband bought almost all of the items in Collection 1 before mid-2016.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The Suburb C property was purchased in early 2018 in the wife's sole name for $1,050,000, using a mortgage of $837,000 and money provided by the husband's parents.
  • The husband's parents provided $271,254 towards the purchase of Suburb C. The wife claimed it was a gift; the court found it was a loan, and preferred the husband's evidence where the parties differed.
  • The husband's parents also paid for the household furniture and its shipping, valued at $10,000. This was treated as a contribution on the husband's behalf.
  • The husband worked and applied his income to the household.

• Non-Financial Contributions:

  • The wife made the majority of the homemaker and parenting contributions after their child was born in 2020. The husband also contributed as homemaker and parent during the marriage.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • After separation, the husband paid half of the mortgage until 20 November 2020, then began paying child support. He paid other utilities for Suburb C until April 2021 and still pays the car loan.
  • The wife has paid all mortgage payments since November 2020 and the utilities since April 2021, with help from her parents.

• Non-Financial Contributions:

  • The wife has been the only parent caring for the child, who has special needs. The husband has had no time or contact with the child since November 2020.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• The asset pool is small: $111,659 in total, of which the net non-superannuation pool is $79,175.
• Real Estate: Suburb C is valued at $1,100,000, with a mortgage of about $794,971 and the $271,254 loan against its equity, leaving about $33,775.
• Other Assets: Collection 1 ($18,000) and Motor Vehicle 1 (net $17,400), the furniture ($10,000), and modest superannuation for each party.
• Income: The husband earns about $105,000 a year. The wife receives government benefits and child support, and has no present earning capacity because of the care of the child.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions were assessed as favouring the husband, mainly because Collection 1, the furniture and the equity in Suburb C came from financial contributions made by him or on his behalf.
• The future considerations favoured the wife: her sole care of the child with special needs and her lack of a present earning capacity.

Division Outcome

• Suburb C is to be sold. From the proceeds, the mortgage is discharged and the husband's mother is repaid $271,254, with the balance to the wife. If the proceeds fall short, the husband must pay his mother the rest.
• The husband retains Collection 1 and Motor Vehicle 1 ($35,400), or 44.7% of the net non-superannuation pool. If the sale yields the expected $33,775, the wife retains $43,775 including the furniture, or 55.3%.
• If the sale leaves nothing for the wife, the husband retains 78% and the wife 22% of the non-superannuation property. The court was satisfied the orders were just and equitable either way.
• Each party keeps their own superannuation.
• The husband must pay half of the child's out-of-pocket medical expenses as non-periodic child support, on top of assessed child support.
• The wife's claim for $25,000 in lump sum spousal maintenance was dismissed.

Unique Aspects

• A specific point of contention was whether the money from the husband's parents was a loan or a gift, which had a large effect on the size of the net pool.
• The court found that the wife's affidavits contained many untruths. Her financial resources were unclear, with unexplained deposits and withdrawals in her accounts, but the court could not find she had access to resources beyond the help her parents already gave.
• The husband had proposed selling Suburb C in late 2020, when it was worth more. The wife rejected that proposal.

Costs

• In a later decision, Jun & Genyu (No 2) [2023] FedCFamC2F 1549 (6 December 2023), the wife was ordered to pay costs of $7,075 to the husband and $7,075 to his mother.

Main Takeaways: In a small pool, money from one party's parents can be a loan that must be repaid before anything is divided. The court balanced the husband's greater financial contributions, made largely through his family, against the wife's future needs as the sole carer of a child with special needs.

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.