· 2025-10-21T06:22:15+0000 · 822 posts

Apples, Oranges, and Equity: Wife seeks 85% of the property as homemaker and caregiver

In Artigas & Merino [2025] FedCFamC2F 949, Deputy Chief Judge McClelland presided over a complex property dispute involving a long marriage, competing financial and homemaking contributions, and disputes over addbacks, superannuation, and post-separation gains. The husband, a high-income professional, argued that his superior financial input and post-separation earnings justified a greater share. The wife, the primary homemaker and caregiver, sought 85% of the property pool. The Court balanced the scales—recognising the husband’s financial dominance but offsetting it with the wife’s long-term homemaking and future needs—ultimately declaring an equal division of assets as “just and equitable.”

Facts and Issues

The parties married in 2002 and separated in 2018 after a 16-year relationship. They had one child, born in 2013.
The husband worked internationally in senior corporate roles; the wife stopped paid work after their child’s birth to become the primary carer.
The major asset was the former matrimonial home valued at $1.325 million, along with the husband’s superannuation (~$370,000) and shareholdings.
The wife sought 85% of the property, alleging she supported the husband’s career and endured hardship; the husband sought a two-pool approach to exclude his post-separation superannuation and share increases.

Key disputes:

Whether post-separation increases in the husband’s assets should form a separate property pool.
Whether prior interim payments should be “added back.”
Whether family violence or litigation conduct warranted adjustment (Kennon argument).
What was a fair and equitable overall division considering s 75(2) Family Law Act 1975 future needs factors.

Law

The Court applied the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 79, 75(2) and followed the four-step approach from Hickey and Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143 [39]:

Identify and value the asset pool.
Assess contributions (financial, non-financial, homemaking).
Consider future needs (s 75(2) factors).
Evaluate whether the result is just and equitable.

Key authorities cited:

Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108 – Just and equitable threshold.
Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545 – Holistic assessment of contributions.
Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513 – Judicial discretion; “apples and oranges.”
Jabour & Jabour (2019) FLC 93-898 – Avoid compartmentalisation of contributions.
Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757 – Family violence impact on contributions.
Omacini (2005) FLC 93-218 – Addbacks of funds spent or distributed pre-trial.

Application of Law to Facts

1. One-Pool vs Two-Pool Approach

The husband argued for a two-pool method, separating post-separation increases in his shares and superannuation. The Court rejected this ([51]–[54]), holding that those increases were partly traceable to the wife’s indirect contributions—her homemaking and childrearing allowed his uninterrupted career progression. Hence, a one-pool approach was fair.

2. Addbacks

The husband sought to add back $35,000 in interim payments made to the wife. The Court refused to add back the $15,000 spousal maintenance but included $20,000 as a notional addback ([42]–[48]) because the wife failed to provide evidence that it was used for necessities rather than discretionary expenses.

3. Contributions

The husband’s higher income and financial responsibility for the home were balanced by the wife’s non-financial and homemaking contributions ([63]–[69]). The Court gave her superior credit for parenting, particularly between 2018–2022, before equal time was ordered.

→ Overall, a 5% contribution adjustment in the husband’s favour was deemed appropriate ([90]–[93]).

4. Future Needs (s 75(2))

The Court found:

The wife had been out of paid employment for over a decade.
The husband’s earning capacity (~$200,000 p.a.) far exceeded hers.
Both shared equal parental care.
The husband’s new partner contributed to his household income.
→ Therefore, a 5% adjustment in favour of the wife for future needs ([114]–[115]).

The 5% contribution advantage to the husband and the 5% needs adjustment to the wife cancelled each other, resulting in an equal division ([117]).

Judgment and Reasoning

Deputy Chief Judge McClelland concluded:

The asset pool totalled $1.41 million, including addbacks.
Each party would receive 50% of the total assets and superannuation.
The wife would be paid $657,771.89 upon sale of the Suburb HH property ([118]–[122]).
The husband retained conduct of the sale, ensuring practical execution.

His Honour reasoned that this result best satisfied the just and equitable requirement of Stanford and reflected the “broad brush” discretionary nature of property proceedings.

Reasoning Highlights (Cited Paragraphs):

Four-step method reaffirmed: [31]–[34].
Addbacks analysis: [42]–[48]; Omacini and Kowaliw applied.
Rejection of two-pool argument: [49]–[54].
Kennon violence claims dismissed: [75]–[88].
Future needs and adjustments: [94]–[115].
Final equal division and rationale: [117]–[124].

Take-Home Lesson

“Equality through balance, not arithmetic.”

This case reinforces that property division under s 79 is not a formula but a discretionary balance of contributions and needs.

A higher-earning spouse’s financial superiority can be offset by the homemaker’s unpaid labour and future economic vulnerability.

Post-separation gains may still fall within the shared asset pool if linked to joint efforts during the relationship.

Ultimately, Artigas & Merino illustrates that a just and equitable outcome often lies in the middle ground—guided by fairness, not financial dominance.