Her disability payout bought the house, and she kept it

Mr Earlman and Ms Blazena lived together in regional Victoria for about eight years from 2013. They had no children together. Neither brought much to the relationship apart from his superannuation of $86,575. He was a tradesperson earning about $140,000 a year, but his job was made redundant in 2014 and he stopped full-time work in 2015.

In 2016 Ms Blazena was diagnosed with a serious illness and never worked again. Mr Earlman became her carer and received a carer's pension. In late 2019 and early 2020 she received a total and permanent disablement (TPD) payment of about $700,000. It paid for everything they came to own: a house they renovated and sold, then the home she still lives in, and two vehicles. At the trial in 2023 the pool was $651,728: her home ($465,000), the vehicles, and his superannuation of $142,028.

They agreed that she would keep the home and that he would keep his superannuation and one vehicle. The fight was over a car worth $38,200. Judge Champion found the TPD payment was overwhelmingly Ms Blazena's contribution, but it was not set aside from the pool. Mr Earlman had contributed to it through his broader contributions to the relationship, and the judge gave due weight to his years as her carer. The judge assessed contributions at 75:25 in her favour.

Then the judge looked at the future. Ms Blazena, aged 48, can never work and depends on the house and the car. Mr Earlman is in relatively good health and could expect about another decade of work, although he had no secure housing. The judge's preliminary view was that a further 5% to her, or 80:20, was warranted, while warning against counting the payout twice. Because almost everything Mr Earlman would keep was superannuation he could not yet touch, the judge settled a little short of that. Standing back, Ms Blazena kept the home and the disputed car, leaving her 77.2% ($503,200) and him 22.8% ($148,528).