2 Comments Family & de facto law, financial agreements, consent orders
The marriage time include the time spent as defacto so would not be considered a short marriage. By the same token there is a large disparity between the two for what they brought into the marriage.
So - the starting point is 50/50 for them as far as assets go. She can argue that she supported them fully or mostly throughout the marriage. He can argue that he brought in a massive asset pool at the start of the marriage.
Contributions in this case are therefore a bit complicated, and it comes down to how well they can be argued.
In short, yes she has a claim on the inherited properties.
I would suggest that due to the value of the properties he brought to the relationship she certainly would not be entitled to over 50% - but she would be entitled to a significant amount I think.
A split could end up being he gets to keep the $1.7M house and she gets the other 2 with the mortgage.
Would help a lot if he had official documentation of the value of these properties at the time he commenced the de facto relationship. Normally the wieght given to initial contributions of a freehold house are significant well into a relationship.
They would need to have increased in value a great deal to justify what she is requesting I think. A $500K house, plus $500K in cash, plus (I assume) she gets to keep the property that she bought during the relationship?
Sounds a tad greedy to me.