Communiqué 3 / 31
October 2nd, 2022
Just Because You Were in a Defacto Relationship, Does Not MeanYou AreEntitled To a Property Settlement
Many people believe that the very existence of a de facto relationship means they are entitled to receive a property settlement from their former de facto spouse. This is not always the case. For example, in the case of Allbrooks & Decarli [2020] FCCA 2594, the Court had to determine the period of the parties’ de facto relationship and whether it was just and equitable for there to be an alteration of their interests in property. The Applicant asserted that the parties were in a de facto relationship for a total period of 6 years and 10 months, and that there should be an alteration of property. The Respondent asserted that the parties were in a relationship for a total period five years and four months, and that there should be no adjustment of the parties’ property interests. The Court declared the parties were in a de facto relationship for a total period of 6 years and 7 months.
However, the Court found that it would not be just and equitable to alter the interests of the parties to the de facto relationship in the property based on the following:
1. The parties did not intermingle their finances;
2. The parties did not have a joint bank account;
3. The parties kept their finances separate, with each party using their income for whatever purpose they chose with neither party having access to or being fully aware of the other party’s financial situation;
4. The parties did not own or acquire jointly owned property;
5. The parties did not financially contribute to the acquisition, maintenance preservation or improvement of real property owned by the other party;
6. The non-financial contributions made by the Applicant to the Respondent’s property at which they lived were not significant and did not give rise to an interest in the property;
7. The Applicant did not make any contribution towards the Respondents business other than the normal contributions made by an employee to her employer;
8. The parties did not engage in joint decision making about their respective financial situations during the relationship; and
9. The parties had no future plans.
The facts in this case and the Court’s decision are a timely reminder that not all de facto relationships end in a property settlement.