Rabino & Rainsford (No. 2)

In *Rabino & Rainsford (No. 2)*, Baumann J of the Family Court of Australia considered a dispute between Ms Rabino (the applicant wife) and Mr Rainsford (the respondent husband) concerning the division of their property. The primary issues before the court were whether a non-vested severance pay entitlement should be included in the asset pool, and whether to "add back" certain post-separation expenditures made by the husband.

The court was required to determine the legal characterisation of the husband's prospective severance pay. Specifically, it had to decide whether this entitlement, which had not yet vested, should be treated as property to be included in the asset pool for division, or as a financial resource to be considered under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the husband's post-separation expenditure of his income warranted an "add back" to the asset pool, thereby reducing his share.

Baumann J reasoned that the husband's severance pay entitlement, while not yet vested, was a certain future event contingent upon the cessation of his employment. Distinguishing the facts from *Sand & Sand* [2012] FamCAFC 179, the court found that the entitlement, based in part on years of service accumulated both before and after separation, should not be ignored. Consequently, the court determined that the gross severance payment of approximately $547,635 should be included in the property pool. Regarding the "add back" of post-separation expenditure, the court noted the wife's contentions regarding the husband's income and withdrawals, but ultimately concluded that the husband had not engaged in conduct that would justify an add-back, particularly given his ongoing support of the family unit and the wife's own income.

The proceedings were adjourned for the pronouncement of final property orders, with directions for the wife to provide draft minutes of order consistent with the court's reasons.