$2 million went through his hands. She was awarded 82.5% of the rest
- Together
- About 22 years, married
- Children
- Three, now adults
- Net pool
- About $1.22 million
- Split
- 82.5% her / 17.5% him
Ms and Mr Raich married in 1988 and raised three children, now adults. Their marriage broke down in about 2011, but they kept living separately under one roof and kept owning property and debt together, including a block they developed into three townhouses. She works full-time in health care. He had a professional job until he was made redundant in 2020.
While Ms Raich drew on her own superannuation to pay arrears on the family home's mortgage, money flowed through Mr Raich's accounts: share sales, withdrawals that emptied his superannuation, a $123,000 redundancy payment, and more than $800,000 that came from his father, apparently from the sale of property overseas. While cleaning out the family home before the lender sold it in 2022, she found records of the redundancy and of a self-managed super fund he had set up. He told the court the money was gone and that he had lived in his car, yet over $450,000 reached his account in the six months after he said he became homeless.
The townhouses sold for $2.8 million. After the mortgage and costs, $1,420,190 was held in trust, about $1.21 million after expected tax. With her small superannuation and a minor share in family land overseas, the known pool was $1,219,794.
Judge O'Shannessy did not add the missing money back into the pool. Instead, the judge found that about $1,981,880 had passed through Mr Raich's hands without satisfactory explanation. On contributions, Ms Raich was assessed at 62.5%: she had worked hard and conserved their assets, while he had worked hard but dissipated them. The judge then made a further 20% adjustment for his failure to make full and frank disclosure or account for the money, and for the chance that he may still benefit from his late father's estate.
The result was 82.5% to Ms Raich and 17.5% to Mr Raich. From the trust funds she was to receive about $992,623, plus $10,592 for costs taken from his share, leaving him about $203,913, in each case less some legal fees.
If large sums pass through one partner's hands and they will not account for them, the court does not need to trace every dollar. It can give the other partner a much larger share of whatever is left.
Although decided in December 2025, the case was decided under the Act as it stood before 10 June 2025, because the final hearing ended in March 2025. The orders express the split as 82.23% and 17.77% of the funds held in trust, because she kept her superannuation separately.
A published decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), retold in plain English. Lawcaptain did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. General information about Australian family law, not legal advice about your situation.
Sort out your own property split.
Agreed on a split? Make it binding with consent orders. Call 1300 967 552, or get an instant quote online.
Debts, spending & hidden assets
He said he owed $440,000, mostly to family. The court left it outTogetherDe facto, from 2004ChildrenThree, living with herNet poolAbout $628,000Split58% her / 42% himFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 29 March 2023Read the case study
His gambling cost about $155,000, and the house split moved her wayTogetherAbout 16 years, marriedChildrenTwo, now adultsNet pool$649,000 plus superSplit67.5% her / 32.5% himFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 8 October 2021Read the case study
He traded shares on borrowed money, so he bore the lossesTogetherOver 20 years, de factoChildrenTwo, now adultsNet poolAbout $180,000SplitAll to her bar his toolsFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 9 May 2022Read the case study