An inheritance, a $257,000 pool and the family dog
- Together
- About 10 years, de facto
- Children
- Two, with their mother
- Net pool
- $257,152 outside super
- Split
- 60% her / 40% him
Mr Rowlinson and Ms Bradford began their relationship in 2010, moved in together in 2012 and separated on 23 September 2020, a de facto relationship of about ten years. In 2015 they bought a home together for $470,000, with each set of parents putting in $12,000. Both worked throughout. She was the main carer of their two children until late 2019, when she was promoted and he dropped to casual work to care for them. At separation he assaulted her and was charged and fined, and the children have lived with her since.
After the hearing, and before judgment, her mother died and she inherited $313,000. He objected, and the property case was reopened. By then the property outside super was worth $257,152 net, mostly equity in the house. She had spent just over $120,000 of the inheritance on legal costs, and his fees were about $157,000. Those bills covered the whole case, which was mostly about the children, but together they exceeded the property being divided.
Judge Betts kept the inheritance out of the pool, because he had made no contribution to it, and took it into account in looking at their futures instead. Contributions were equal: he brought in more at the start; she did more of the homemaking and parenting, especially after separation. Both earn about $2,800 to $2,900 a week. The judge gave her a further 10% for her overwhelming care of the children, and said it would have been higher but for her inheritance. That made 60/40 outside super, and each kept their own super. She was given 42 days to pay him $80,137 and keep the house; otherwise he could buy her out, or the house would be sold.
He also wanted one of their two dogs. The dog was registered in her name and had always lived with the other dog, and with her and the children since separation. The judge refused to separate them: "The dog may be property at law but it is not a piece of furniture."
An inheritance received after separation may be kept out of the pool and still count against a bigger adjustment. And when two people's legal bills grow larger than the property they are dividing, both of them lose.
Decided under s 90SM before the 2024 amendments. Since 10 June 2025, s 90SM(6) and (7) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (s 79(6) and (7) for married couples) deal expressly with companion animals: the court may only order that one party own the animal, that it go to someone who consents, or that it be sold, and it must weigh matters such as who cared for it and any attachment of a child to it.
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.
Relationships with children
Full-time care, a casual job, and 75% of the property outside superTogether15 years, marriedChildrenTwo, with their motherNet pool$520,547 outside superSplit75% her / 25% himFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 28 June 2024Read the case study
He brought in property and bought a business: 57.5% to himTogether2002 to 2016, one breakChildrenTwoNet poolAbout $949,000 with superSplit57.5% him / 42.5% herFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 22 September 2023Read the case study
On a pension with the children, he was awarded 80% outside superTogetherAbout 15 years, marriedChildrenTwo, with their fatherNet pool$171,250 outside superSplit80% him / 20% herFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 28 October 2025Read the case study