Ursino & Baratos [2023] FedCFamC2F 933

Ursino & Baratos [2023] FedCFamC2F 933

Relationship Details

• Type: Marriage
• Duration: The relationship began in about 2007 (the start of cohabitation was disputed). Married in 2010, separated finally on 25 January 2018.
• Ages of the parties at judgment: Wife 47, Husband 48

Children

• Children from the relationship: Two children, X, aged 11 (born 2012) and Y, aged 9 (born 2014).
• Children from previous relationships: The husband has an adult daughter, aged 22, from a previous marriage.
• Post-separation parenting arrangements: Children live with the wife, spend time with the husband four nights a fortnight and half of all school holidays.

Initial Financial Positions

• Husband:

  • Property at D Street, Suburb E, purchased in 2003, before cohabitation; there was no evidence of its value or his equity at the start of the relationship.
  • Various business interests via trust arrangements.

• Wife:

  • No evidence of significant initial assets.

Contributions During the Relationship

• Financial Contributions:

  • Husband was the primary financial contributor through his businesses.
  • The wife worked in the husband's businesses in sales and administration until the first child was born in 2012, and later contributed through homemaking, childcare and managing the rental properties.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • Wife was primarily responsible for homemaking and caring for the children after 2012.

Post-Separation Contributions and Actions

• Financial Contributions:

  • The husband’s business went into administration in early 2019, after separation, and was then liquidated.
  • The wife received the rental income from the properties in her name; the husband paid child support, school fees and other child-related costs.

• Non-financial Contributions:

  • The wife continued primary caretaking responsibilities for the children.

• Disputed loan:

  • A contentious loan from Mr J, an employee of the business, secured by a second mortgage over the matrimonial home after separation, which the wife said was a sham.

Current Financial Position & Property Pool

• Husband:

  • Works as a company director, income approximately $5,700 per fortnight.
  • Has interests in a new business (H Pty Ltd) valued at $91,000.
  • Outlined debts of the dissolved K Company which were dismissed as marital liabilities.

• Wife:

  • Employed part-time as a healthcare worker, earning $1,000 per fortnight.
  • Gains rental income of $740 per week from properties in her name.

• Real Estate and Other Assets:

  • Wife retains properties at D Street (Suburb E) and B Street (Suburb C), with specified valuations.
  • Husband retains matrimonial home at F Street (Suburb G).
  • Superannuation balances approximately: Wife $32,000, Husband $26,588.

• Property Pool: Net non-superannuation assets of $1,441,810, plus superannuation of $58,588.

Assessment of Contributions and Future Needs

• Contributions Overview:

  • Contributions over the relationship were assessed as equal.

• Future Needs Considerations:

  • Wife’s childcare responsibilities.
  • Disparity in income and earning capacity, with the children's ages, justified a 10% adjustment in the wife’s favour, for a division of about 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband.
  • No superannuation split was considered appropriate.

Unique Aspects

• The contentious issue of a supposed business loan from Mr J, claimed by the husband and denied by the wife, was ruled not to be a liability of the marriage. The court treated the money as an unsecured loan to the failed business, and found that the 2018 second mortgage, made after separation without the wife's knowledge, was intended to diminish her claim.
• Failed business ventures and incomplete financial disclosure complicated asset assessment and liability.
• The husband produced no evidence of the personal guarantees (said to total $530,000) he claimed to have given to the failed company's creditors, so those claimed liabilities were excluded.

Conclusion

The Court made a division reflecting equal contributions and a 10% future needs adjustment, aiming at about 60% of the net assets to the wife. Each party kept the properties and debts registered in their own names, which gave the wife slightly less than 60% on agreed values but avoided the costs of selling and transferring real estate.

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.