 |
| |
|
 Value of a homemaker |
|
 |
|
 |
|
When a young Sydney shop assistant married her childhood sweetheart, a carpenter, she never imagined he would build an empire on property development worth more than $10 million. And when the fairytale romance ended after 27 years, the woman never dreamed that raising three children and looking after the family home would be deemed less important than her husband's role as money earner.
This is exactly what the Family Court decided when it awarded a wife just 30 per cent of their joint assets, saying her contribution to the marriage was nowhere near her husband's. The judge added insult to injury when he compared the husband to a talented and imaginative landscape architect responsible for creating the most beautiful garden in England while the wife was described as a gardener who tilled the soil and weeded the beds.
In theory, a court has to weigh up the contribution both partners have made to building up their assets when a marriage breaks down. The job of homemaker and parent should be given equal value to that of the partner who was the family's chief money earner.
The law generally works when a long marriage, of more than 15 years, falls apart and is of a so-called "house and garden variety" - that is when the argument is over dividing the family home, one or two cars, household furniture and superannuation.
However, it quickly collapses when the property settlement becomes more complicated and takes in other assets, such as business property and where the home maker has made no direct contribution to building up these assets.
This was set in concrete by the High Court when it decided that under those circumstances it could not be assumed that the role of homemaker had an equal claim to joint assets accumulated over a long marriage. The long-suffering wife in the above case appealed the original decision and the court agreed the amount she was awarded was far too low and greater emphasis should be given to the idea of equality in marriage.
Despite the promising remarks, the woman still missed out on gaining half of the $10 million and was awarded 37.5 per cent - a modest increase on the original order. The Court has in some cases awarded up to a 50/50 split in big money cases but in others has ordered less to the homemaker. Much depends on the facts of an individual case.
If you want to know what a court might do in your circumstances it is best to contact a specialist family lawyer.
February 2001
February, 2001
|
|
 |
|
