When a long marriage ends and property must be divided, the Family Court looks at more than just who earned what. It also weighs contributions, future needs, parenting roles, and even family loans.
In Brimmer & Brimmer [2025], the Court dealt with a couple who had two children, modest assets, a significant loan from the husband’s parents, and disputed credit card debt. The wife had cared for the children full-time, while the husband had progressed in his career.
This case shows how the Court balances past contributions with future needs—and when loans from family members really count as debts to be repaid.
Background of the Case
- The parties were married for 11 years and had two children, aged 9 and 12 at the time of trial.
- They had bought a home together early in the marriage, with help from both families.
- The main issues were:
- Whether the husband’s credit card debts should be included
- Whether the loan from the husband’s parents was real and enforceable
- What share each party should receive from the small property and superannuation pool
The Asset Pool
The couple’s total net pool—including super—was about $648,696, broken down as follows:
- House value: $930,000
- Mortgages: Two loans totalling $547,499
- Family loan: $83,000 (based on a signed agreement giving the husband’s parents 21.73% of home equity)
- Superannuation: $249,293 in total, mostly held by the husband
- Other assets: Cars and a modest amount from a previously sold property
The wife wanted an 80/20 split in her favour. The husband proposed 60/40.
What About the Husband’s Credit Cards?
The husband claimed over $50,000 in personal credit card debt. But:
- He didn’t provide statements or detailed evidence
- He didn’t show the debts were incurred for joint expenses
- He didn’t show when or why the debts were taken on
So the Court excluded these debts from the asset pool.
Key takeaway: If you claim personal debts in a property settlement, be ready to show where the money went—and how it benefited the relationship.
Was the Parents’ Loan Legitimate?
The husband’s parents had given the couple $100,000 early in the marriage, and all parties signed a loan agreement that said the parents would get 21.73% of the house equity when sold.
The wife claimed:
- She was forced to sign it
- The money wasn’t actually used
- It was meant to avoid tax
But the Court found:
- The loan was real
- The wife had acknowledged the contribution in earlier documents
- The money had been used to reduce lender’s mortgage insurance
So the Court ordered that $83,000 be paid back to the parents when the property is sold.
👉 Lesson: Family loans with signed agreements are taken seriously in family law—especially when all parties understood the arrangement.
Contributions and Future Needs
The Court found that:
- Both parties contributed equally during the marriage
- The wife was the primary carer and homemaker
- The husband had benefited from the wife’s support and was now a higher income earner
- The wife had limited job prospects and would need to rehouse the children
As a result, the Court gave the wife a 15% adjustment in her favour under section 75(2) (future needs).
This meant the wife received:
- 65% of the total non-super asset pool
- 65% of the combined superannuation
What Happens to the Family Home?
The wife wanted to keep the family home but didn’t prove she could refinance it. So:
- She was given until June 2025 to pay out:
- $88,840 to the husband
- $83,000 to the husband’s parents
- $60,000 to repay H Bank
- $200,000 into trust for pending Supreme Court litigation involving her former lawyer
- If she couldn’t do this, the home would be sold, and the proceeds would be divided as per the 65/35 ratio
Other Orders
- Each party kept their own car, super, and personal items
- The wife was ordered to keep paying the mortgages until the house is sold or transferred
- The Court restrained her from further encumbering the home
- There was liberty to apply if either side failed to cooperate
- The wife’s attempt to retain more cash and less super was rejected—both sides needed cash to rehouse themselves
Key Takeaways
🔹 Signed family loans matter—especially when backed by formal agreements.
🔹 Debts claimed must be proven—especially if they’re personal credit cards.
🔹 Homemaker contributions are valued—particularly in long relationships.
🔹 Future needs matter—the lower-income parent often receives an adjustment.
🔹 You can’t just “choose” cash over super—the Court aims to keep things fair for both parties.
🔹 Refinancing needs proof—it’s not enough to say “I’ll get a job.” You must show how.