Property Settlements and Short Relationships

Property Settlements and Short Relationships

Generally, a relationship is considered to be short if the relationship is five years or less.

The law that applies when determining how property in a short relationship should be divided, is no different to a long relationship.

Knowing what ‘the court will do’ provides insight into this situation.

The relevant court is The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court will always need to be satisfied that it is ‘just and equitable’ for there to be a division of the property pool.

To do this, the Court will look at:

• The value of assets, liabilities and superannuation
• Each person’s contribution to the property pool including initial contributions, financial contributions, non-financial contributions, and contributions as a homemaker or parent
• Future factors that may warrant an adjustment in favour of one party including differences in age, income, health, earning capacity, and the care of the child. This is less likely in a short relationship if there are no children.
• Whether the division of property is just and equitable.
  

In short relationships the Court:

• Will look more closely at the financial contributions of each party.
• How assets were acquired, maintained and improved, particularly if there are no children in the relationship.
• Greater weight is placed on initial financial contributions to the relationship, particularly if assets are relatively similar during the relationship.
• Is more likely to return each party to a similar position to what they were in before they entered into the relationship
  

Case Notes

Rose & Mitchell  [2016] FCCA 771 

A case that demonstrates how the law applies is Rose & Mitchell [2016] FCCA 771.

In this case, the parties lived together for a little over three years. Their asset pool was modest, with the main asset being the matrimonial home. The husband bought the house and paid for it in its entirety. There was one child of the marriage, and the wife was the primary caregiver of their one child.

It was determined by the Judge that 90% of the contributions were made by the husband and 10% by the wife. And when considering future factors, the Judge determined the wife had more significant future needs by way of parenting responsibilities so was awarded a 15% adjustment for her future needs.

The result was that 75% of the property pool was awarded to the husband and 25% to the wife.

Reflections on Rose & Mitchell 

Having regard to the considerations in this case, it stands to reason that if the parties did not have any children the wife may have only received 10% of the property pool.

Alternatively, the Court may have simply returned the parties to the position they were in before they began living together.

The Court has a wide discretion when determining property settlements. If you have ended a short relationship, it is always wise to obtain legal advice so that you know where you stand.