Pfeiffer & Pfeiffer [2023] FedCFamC2F 1131

Pfeiffer & Pfeiffer [2023] FedCFamC2F 1131

Relationship Details

• Court: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), Launceston, Judge Turnbull, 29 August 2023
• Type: Marriage
• Duration: The parties began their relationship in about 2016, lived together from 2017, married in 2019 and separated on 1 July 2021. Cohabitation was interrupted by COVID-19 and work deployments; the relationship lasted about 4 years.
• Ages at Judgment: Husband is 31 years old and the Wife is 30 years old.

Children

• Child from Relationship: One child, born in 2021, who was 1 year old at the hearing. Parenting and child support orders were made by consent at the start of the trial.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Non-superannuation assets of $120,002.23 (a car, bank savings and shares), plus $15,000 of accrued long service leave: $135,002.23 in all.
  • Superannuation of $79,662.

• Wife:

  • Car valued at $12,500.
  • Savings of $16,000.
  • Superannuation valued at $41,000.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband's savings and share proceeds were pivotal to buying the couple's four properties; one property sold for a profit of $487,950 before tax.
  • His income significantly exceeded the wife's throughout the relationship.
  • Both parties received and applied to their property government home-purchase assistance and injury compensation payments.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Both parties were heavily involved in buying and developing the properties, and both contributed to homemaking when living together.
  • The wife's contributions were particularly important after the birth of their child.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband lived in one of the properties and continued to pay its mortgage and outgoings, as well as spousal maintenance (until November 2022) and child support. The court rejected the wife's claim that he had wasted the chance to rent it out.
  • He used part of his $30,000 long service leave payment to meet child support in late 2022.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife has been the child's sole carer since separation.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Total Asset Pool: Net non-superannuation asset pool valued at $1,499,335, as agreed by the parties.

• Division of Assets:

  • Before the orders, the wife held assets valued at $930,951 and the husband $568,384.
  • The parties agreed on a superannuation splitting order in the wife's favour with a base amount of $103,000.

• Positions: The wife sought 65% of the non-superannuation pool, while the husband proposed 55% to the wife.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Assessment of Contributions:

  • The court assessed contributions as 55% to 45% in the husband's favour because of his initial contributions and higher income.
  • The court accepted the parties' joint proposal of a further 15% adjustment to the wife, giving a 60/40 division of the non-superannuation assets in her favour.

• Future Needs Considerations:

  • The wife's primary care of a child not yet two years old.
  • The disparity in the parties' earning capacity, and the husband's continuing child support obligation.
  • The husband's high cost of spending time with the child, who lives in another state.

Unique Aspects

• The husband's initial contributions enabled the parties to build a significant property portfolio in a short relationship.
• $10,000 of the long service leave spent on legal fees was added back by agreement. The court declined to add back the other $20,000, because there was no evidence it was spent wantonly or recklessly, and took it into account in assessing contributions instead.

Final Division

• Decision: The wife receives 60% of the net pool, assets valued at $899,601. The husband receives $599,734, keeping the property he lives in and its mortgage.
• Monetary Transfer: The husband is to receive $31,350 from sale proceeds held in trust, with the balance going to the wife.

Main Takeaways

• The court weighed the husband's initial contributions and higher income against the wife's contributions, especially after the child's birth.
• An agreed future-needs adjustment moved the balance in the wife's favour.
• Post-separation spending on ordinary living costs and child support is not usually added back to the pool.

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.