Keech & Keech [2023] FedCFamC2F 51

Keech & Keech [2023] FedCFamC2F 51

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Approximately 13 years. Met online in late 2005, began the relationship in 2006, married in 2009. The date of separation was disputed; the court found the relationship was on and off from 2014 until January 2019.
• Ages: Husband born in 1967, Wife born in 1979.

Children

• Children from Relationship: One son, born in 2013.
• Children from Previous Relationships: Not mentioned.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • No real property at the start of the relationship.
  • Significant assets later came from an inheritance of close to $3 million, received in 2012.

• Wife:

  • Owned an apartment in City G, purchased in 2002 with a net equity of $40,000 after considering a $80,000 value and $40,000 mortgage.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband received an inheritance worth close to $3 million, contributing to property purchases and investments.
  • Purchase of the B Street, Suburb C, NSW property (in joint names) for about $500,000, on which about $1 million more was spent in renovations, plus other properties and investments.
  • Wife worked in Australia (casual retail and hospitality, then 5 to 6 days a week from 2011 to 2013) and at times in the Husband's business. She brought an apartment with about $40,000 equity into the marriage.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Husband gave up paid work and spent years renovating the B Street property as an owner-builder, using custom and recycled materials. The court gave this limited weight because he spent more on buying and renovating the property than it is now worth.
  • Wife's contributions as homemaker and parent were significantly greater than the Husband's, and were made more arduous by his conduct.
  • The Wife argued the Husband wasted money on the renovations. The court rejected that argument.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Limited post-separation contributions detailed beyond care arrangements for the child. Parenting orders were made by consent in March 2021.
• No substantial asset dissipation was identified by the court, though Husband was not in paid employment from 2014 to late 2019.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Assets:

  • Total asset pool was approximately $2,203,289.
  • Noteworthy assets include property located at B Street, Suburb C, substantial superannuation funds, luxury home renovations, and investment properties.

• Debts and Liabilities:

  • Both parties have modest incomes: the Husband works full-time in the service industry, and the Wife recently graduated from tertiary study.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • The Court accepted the Wife's "Kennon" argument in part: it found the Husband's conduct was family violence that made her contributions more arduous, and gave her work and parenting greater weight.
  • Weight was given to the husband's substantial financial contributions through his inheritance.
  • The Court found the Husband's contributions overwhelmed the Wife's and made a 30% adjustment in his favour (80% to the Husband, 20% to the Wife).

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • A 5% adjustment favoured the Wife under s 75(2). The court noted she has the majority of the care of the parties' son and a report suggesting PTSD, but found both parties able to work and their incomes modest.
  • Resulting in a 75% allocation to the Husband and 25% to the Wife. On the non-superannuation pool of $1,816,257 the Wife's 25% is $454,064.25.

Unique Aspects

• The substantial inheritance received by the Husband played a pivotal role in financial contributions assessment.
• Extensive home renovations and the subsequent financial implications were scrutinised but ultimately not faulted to the Husband as waste.
• Family violence by the Husband was taken into account in assessing the Wife's contributions.

Final Division

• The Wife transfers her interest in the B Street property to the Husband on his paying her $290,882.25 (allowing for $163,182 of assets and add-backs she already holds). If he does not pay, the property is to be sold.
• Superannuation is also divided 75/25: the Wife is to receive $96,758 of the $387,032 superannuation pool, so $33,205 of her superannuation is split to the Husband.
• Funds in the family trust go to the Husband, and he indemnifies the Wife against liabilities of the family superannuation fund.

Summary

The determination significantly considered the Husband's inheritance and respective contributions, yielding a dominant financial contribution by him, offset by a 5% adjustment to the Wife under s 75(2), giving a 75/25 division.

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.