He dissipated over $500,000, then died: her 90% restored on appeal

Ms Hatch and Mr Madsen, who were the same age, met in 2004 in their early fifties, moved in together in 2006 and separated in November 2019, ending a relationship of about 15 years. They had no children together; he had four children from earlier relationships. In 2006 they bought a home together, each putting in $250,000. In 2008 her father died and left her $1.3 million, much of which went into her super. In 2015 he was diagnosed with a terminal illness.

In February 2020 he changed his will to leave everything to his children. She started property proceedings in April 2020. By the time he died in 2021 he had sold almost everything he owned except his share of the home, and had disposed of the proceeds, more than $500,000. His estate carried on the case.

The trial judge assessed contributions at 70% to her and 30% to him. Much of his renovation work on the home was found to be incomplete and poorly done, and his auction purchases were described as "junk". The judge added 10% for future factors and another 10% for the assets he had dissipated before his death: 90/10. But she then cut the wife's share to 84%. At 10%, his estate would receive about $155,000, well below the $250,000 he had put into the home, and an 84/16 split meant his four children would each receive "a modest but reasonable inheritance". The wife was to pay his estate $250,000 for his share of the home.

The wife appealed, and the estate conceded the appeal should be allowed. Justice Tree held that the children's inheritance was an irrelevant consideration in a property case, and that his $250,000 had already been counted in the 70/30 assessment. Given that he had dissipated more than $500,000 after separation, there was nothing unjust in his estate receiving only $155,000. The judge restored the 90/10 division and cut the payment from $250,000 to $155,000, with the wife keeping the home.