Reza & Reza [2023] FedCFamC2F 179

Reza & Reza [2023] FedCFamC2F 179 Case Report

Background Details

• Parties: Husband and Wife (the Husband's former trustee in bankruptcy was also a party)
• Type: Marriage
• Duration: Married and began living together in 1994, separated in 2013 (continuing to live under the same roof for a time), total duration approximately 19 years.
• Ages at the final hearing: Husband 49, Wife 48

Children

• Children from Relationship: Six children:
  • Mr D, born 1997 (26 years)
  • Mr E, born 1998 (24 years), who has an intellectual disability
  • W, born 2005 (17 years)
  • X, born 2006 (16 years)
  • Y, born 2007 (15 years)
  • Z, born 2008 (14 years)

Initial Financial Positions

• Wife: No assets or liabilities at the commencement of the cohabitation.
• Husband: No assets other than a repossessed motor vehicle.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband was the principal financial provider until separation, working as a tradesperson until about 2017, when an old injury deteriorated and he could no longer work.
  • Husband paid the mortgage payments on their Suburb C property from his earnings.
  • Wife contributed through Social Security entitlements.

• Non-Financial Contributions:

  • Wife was never in paid employment during the marriage and was the primary homemaker and parental caregiver for all six children.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • Wife continued to support children through Social Security.
  • No child support paid by the Husband.

• Non-Financial Contributions:

  • Wife was the primary caregiver for the children, including their disabled adult child.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Current Assets:

  • Net proceeds from the sale of the Suburb C property: $313,216.54, including an add-back of legal costs and disbursements the former trustee had paid from the proceeds, which the court found unacceptable.
  • The Wife's savings of about $11 and household contents of about $300 were disregarded.

• Liabilities:

  • Minimal liabilities considered.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions:

  • Contributions were equal up to separation in 2013. Because of the Wife's significantly greater contributions after separation, caring for the children and providing a home, overall contributions were assessed at 70% to the Wife and 30% to the Husband.

• Future Needs Adjustments:

  • Adjusted an additional 10% in favour of the Wife, at the expense of the Husband's bankrupt estate.
  • Considerations include care responsibilities for children, especially the disabled adult child, financial dependence on Social Security, and lack of recent employment opportunities.

• Final Division:

  • 80% of the sale proceeds ($250,573.23) awarded to Wife.
  • 20% of the sale proceeds ($62,643.31) to the Husband’s bankrupt estate.
  • After allowing $5,000 for a costs order made against the Wife in earlier bankruptcy proceedings in Adelaide, $245,573.23 is paid to the Wife and $67,643.31 to the bankrupt estate.

Unique Aspects

• Proceedings complicated by the Husband's bankruptcy, by a sequestration order made in early 2010. The family was removed from the home by the Sheriff in early 2020 so it could be sold for the bankrupt estate.
• Legal complexities arose because earlier bankruptcy orders had been made in Adelaide under the Law of Property Act 1936 (SA) for a property in NSW.
• The Wife was a victim of the Husband's family violence, but the evidence of its impact on her contributions was slim, and the court did not find that it made her contributions more onerous (a Kennon argument was rejected).
• Unusual aspect due to consideration of creditors' rights given the bankruptcy context.

Conclusion

The final division considered the Wife's ongoing financial needs for minor children and a disabled adult child, as well as her primary contributions to the family unit post-separation. The allocation structure aimed to account for the lack of financial contribution from the Husband post-separation and acknowledged the Wife's pivotal role in maintaining the family.

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.