What happens with property when a brief relationship ends?
What’s the legal definition of a de facto relationship? If you only live together for a few months, does that count in the eyes of the law? And are you entitled to anything in a property settlement once that relationship is over?
The Family Law Act has dealt with de facto relationship property settlements since 2009. The starting point requires the existence of a ‘genuine domestic relationship’ (see our article ‘Are you in a de facto relationship?’)
If a genuine domestic relationship exists, generally the court will then only make property division orders for a de facto relationship if:
- The relationship has lasted two years
- The relationship resulted in a child, or
- A failure to make a property order would result in “serious injustice” to one of the people involved
In a recent case, the court was asked to declare that a de facto relationship did exist.
Both parties admitted that the relationship had lasted for 16 months, but the woman involved said she had made a “substantial contribution” to the relationship, and that not receiving a property settlement would be a “serious injustice” to her.
The woman had a child from a previous relationship.
When the couple moved in together, her partner supported her and her child during the 16-month relationship, including paying school fees, providing her with $800 each week for expenses, and paying for holidays – including overseas trips – for all three of them.
The partner also paid out a $2500 debt she owed at the beginning of their relationship.
The court heard that the partner worked as a pilot and also ran his own business.
The woman told the court she had made significant contributions to the relationship, including:
- Helping her partner with his business by doing bookwork.
- Attended to the gardens at the home in which they lived (owned by his mother) including maintaining and improving them, as well as supervising a professional gardener in a restructure of the garden. However, the gardener was paid for by her partner.
- On the days when he was at work – which was nine days per month, working as a pilot – she was the primary homemaker.
- That she supervised and arranged renovations of a house belonging to his mother – a house where she lived with her child and her partner during the relationship.
The judge ultimately had to consider carefully whether her contributions were “substantial” in nature – were they more than ordinary? And if an order was not made, would the injustice she suffered be considered serious?
The judge found each party to be honest in their accounts of their relationship, and that the woman had made contributions. However, the judge took into consideration that the woman had been provided with financial support, and accommodation for her and her son, as well as having her child’s school fees paid, and holidays fully paid for her and her son.
The judge stated: “Not in any way diminishing the commitment, or expectation of the applicant, I am not of the view that these contributions fit with the adjective of ‘substantial’ in the sense of over and above the ordinary,” the judge said.
The judge added he took into account the shortness of the relationship and the fact the woman had made minimal financial contributions, meaning there would be no property order made in her favour.
If you have questions about whether you are in a de facto relationship or if you are entitled to a property settlement, or any other aspect of family law, make an appointment at Michael Lynch Family Lawyers. Our family law experts are here to help you.
Phone: (07) 3221 4300 or email: [email protected]
