His $200,000 inheritance was spent, so it could not be set aside
- Together
- About 7½ years, de facto
- Children
- None together
- Net pool
- $2.3 million plus super
- Split
- 75% him / 25% her
Mr Mesic and Ms Lazar each had children from earlier relationships but none together. They could not even agree when their relationship began and ended. Judge Jenkins found they were in a de facto relationship from December 2012 to May 2020, about 7½ years. He was a self-employed tradesperson who brought in two properties, now worth $920,000 and $1,590,000. She brought $83,203.39 from her own earlier settlement, which the judge found was spent for both of them, and the judge accepted that she worked long hours for low pay in the building business.
In 2019 Mr Mesic inherited about $200,000 in cash from his late father. He said the money arrived after they had separated and should be quarantined for him alone. The judge did not accept that they had separated by then. More importantly, the money was no longer there: about $130,000 had probably gone into a building company that was later placed in liquidation, and the rest went on bills and superannuation. There was nothing left to set aside. Instead the inheritance counted as his contribution, because it helped keep the business going and so gave the couple an income.
He also said he owed his brother $118,822. His brother had sent him $90,000, but only after separation, without a formal agreement at the time, and a significant part may have gone on his legal fees. The loan was left out of the pool. The net pool was $2,305,905, and their superannuation was split equally by agreement.
Weighing all their contributions, including his properties as a significant initial contribution to a relatively short relationship, the judge made a 30% adjustment in his favour, putting him at 80% and her at 20%. Looking ahead, he could still earn money, while she was on a disability pension and had nothing but her car and superannuation, so the judge moved 5% back to her. The result was 75% to him and 25% to her: she kept her car and was to be paid $571,476.25 within 120 days, or one of his properties would be sold. He kept equity of $1,729,429.
Asking for an inheritance to be kept out of the pool works best when the money still exists; once spent on the relationship, it is usually weighed as a contribution instead. A family loan made after separation, without proper terms, may not count as a debt at all.
Decided before the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 took effect on 10 June 2025. The reform wrote the existing steps into the Act and does not change how a spent inheritance or an informal family loan is treated.
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.
Inheritances, gifts & windfalls
Her disability payout bought the house, and she kept itTogetherAbout 8 years, de factoChildrenNone togetherNet poolAbout $652,000Split77.2% her / 22.8% himFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 27 July 2023Read the case study
His father's money: a loan to repay, or a gift?TogetherAbout 11 years, marriedNet poolAbout $139,000Split53% him / 47% herFederal Circuit Court of Australia · 8 May 2020Read the case study
She brought in $718,000 and an inheritance. He left with 17.5%TogetherAbout 11½ years, de factoChildrenNone togetherNet poolAbout $320,000 plus superSplit82.5% her / 17.5% himFederal Circuit Court of Australia · 3 July 2019Read the case study