Kalnins & Vollis [2023] FedCFamC2F 159

Kalnins & Vollis [2023] FedCFamC2F 159

Relationship Details

• Type: De facto
• Duration: Relationship commenced in 2007 and ended in December 2020, totalling approximately 13 years.
• Ages of Parties at Judgment: both 65

Children

• No children from the relationship were mentioned.

Initial Financial Positions

• Applicant (De facto wife):

  • Previous marriage from 1978 to 2005 with two adult children.
  • Financial contributions totalling $188,086.16 towards the B Street property (made during the relationship), including personal loans and $85,000 withdrawal from superannuation.

• Respondent (De facto husband):

  • B Street property originally purchased with his then-wife in 1997 for $180,000.
  • Paid out former wife $150,000 around 2002/2003, borrowing against the house.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Applicant alleged significant financial contributions towards the property and living expenses.
  • Respondent claimed payment of household necessities and covering grocery expenses.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Applicant contributed through homemaking activities such as cooking and cleaning and provision of care for respondent's daughter.
  • Respondent claimed to care for the applicant post her knee injury in December 2019 and became a registered carer for her.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Continued cohabitation with contributions such as meal preparation and grocery shopping by the applicant.
• Respondent claimed ongoing support and attending appointments.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Applicant:

  • On a Centrelink disability pension with no significant savings due to financial contributions to the relationship.
  • Sought a 55% adjustment from a revised asset pool value.

• Respondent:

  • Receiving aged pension.
  • Alleged misrepresentation of financial status and failure of proper asset disclosure; specifically $150,000 transferred to his sister.

• Property Pool:

  • B Street property valued at $850,000.
  • Total asset pool $1,199,865, including the respondent's superannuation and an add-back of $150,000 he transferred to his sister.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • The applicant sought 55% and the respondent proposed 37.5% to her (if the relationship ran from 2007).
  • Future needs considered, with both parties suffering poor health and having no future earning capacity.

• Final Division: The court found it just and equitable for the applicant to receive 45% of the pool (about $539,939). As the B Street property was the only asset available to fund that, it was ordered to be sold, with 63.5% of the net proceeds (about $539,750) to the applicant and 36.5% to the respondent, who also keeps the add-back and his superannuation.

Unique Aspects

• Significant legal issues arose around the duration and recognition of the de facto relationship, with contrasting claims of starting in 2007 versus 2016.
• The court found the respondent's account of a $150,000 'loan' to his sister was made up and a deliberate attempt to hide the money, and added it back to the pool.
• Notable reliance on informal agreements, declarations, and Centrelink documentation in establishing the relationship timeline and contributions.

Conclusion

This case illustrates complexities in de facto relationships with substantial financial contributions intertwined with non-disclosure allegations and prolonged legal proceedings, indicative of the challenging nature of property settlements post-separation where parties present vastly differing representations of their financial involvement and personal relationship dynamics.

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.