What happens when couples kiss and makeup…and then separate again?
Freeman Family Law was involved in a case in 2019 that centred around that very question, successfully arguing that the original Settlement agreement and contributions made during the period of separation were relevant in the event of a second separation between the two parties.
The case Borg & Bosco  FCCA 66 (18 January 2019) (the names of the parties were changed when the case was published to protect the privacy of the parties) which set a precedent for this unusual scenario, dealt with the question of what happens when a de facto (or married) couple separates, gets back together and separates again.
In this case, the couple had been de facto partners from 1999 to 2005, having two children in this time.
In 2007, they implemented a financial agreement to divide their assets.
They reconciled in 2011 and married in 2013.
In 2017, they separated for the final time.
The question in this case, related to whether or not the entire relationship should be considered (as if the original financial agreement never occurred), or if consideration should be given to what occurred during the time the couple spent apart.
Ms Borg sought a division of the parties’ property 65 per cent in her favour and 35 per cent in Mr Bosco’s. Her argument was in effect that the original financial agreement and the intervening period between relationships should be disregarded.
Mr Bosco contested this. Freeman Family Law argued on his behalf that the original financial agreement, although no longer binding, was relevant as were the contributions made by Mr Bosco during the separation period.
Freeman Family Law successfully argued that the length of the separation and the fact that Mr Bosco had considerably improved his financial situation during the period of separation should be given due credit in the final division of assets.
This argument centred on the fact that Mr Bosco had purchased Ms Borg’s interest in the matrimonial home as part of the Financial Agreement in 2007 and which was by far the largest asset in the property pool, and had maintained and made all relevant payments on the property during the period of separation from 2005 until they resumed their relationship in 2011.
The final settlement awarded was a division of the asset pool 60/40 in Mr Bosco’s favour.
The Court found, “The parties had two relationships of about five and a half years each, separated by a period of some six and a half years. They both did their best throughout. The primary asset now available has plainly always belonged to the husband who has equally clearly always made the payments on it. An outcome that gives him 60 per cent of the pool is, in my view, just and equitable.”
Whilst each case is unique, Freeman Family Law’s intimate understanding of the law, ability to interpret the facts and present the relevant arguments, helped its client to achieve a significantly successful outcome in this precedent case.
Coronavirus (COVID19) Outbreak
Parenting Orders & COVID 19
Preparing for your first online family law consultation
The Bank of Mum and Dad: What to consider when helping children buy property
Family Law 101: What to do when you receive a letter from a family lawyer
The Aussie ‘Prenup’: Understanding Binding Financial Agreements Duri ...
Family Law 101: Understanding Family Reports
Report: 42 per cent of people have experienced a negative change in their relati ...
We’re Open For Business | A Freeman Family Law Stage Four Lockdown Update
Four reasons why not having a Will causes more heartbreak for your loved ones
Protecting children from “Unacceptable Risk”
Who gets what? How inheritances are treated in family law
Tick, tock: Time limits and post-divorce/post-separation applications for proper ...
Gut feeling and the Family Court
Christmas, Separation and Kids: Handling holiday arrangements
Time is Money: Why Mediation could be a better solution to your Family Court mat ...
What is Collaborative Law?