Savage and Savage

This case involved competing property applications between a husband and wife, Mr and Mrs Savage, heard in the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne before Brown J. The parties married in 1974 and separated in 2004, having been married for approximately 30 years. The dispute concerned the division of their various assets and liabilities, including the former matrimonial home, other real estate, superannuation entitlements, and business interests.

The primary legal issues before the court were to identify and value the parties' assets and liabilities, determine the contributions of each party to the marriage and the acquisition, improvement, and preservation of their property, and consider various financial and personal circumstances of the parties under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* to ensure a just and equitable distribution. Specifically, the court had to assess the weight to be given to the husband's initial inheritance from his family farm and the wife's later inheritance from her father, as well as their respective financial, homemaking, and parenting contributions throughout the marriage and post-separation. The court also had to address the division of superannuation entitlements, including the application of specific provisions for splittable payments.

Brown J applied the established approach to property division under section 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975*, involving the identification of assets and liabilities, assessment of contributions, and consideration of section 75(2) factors. The court found that while the husband made an initial significant contribution through his inheritance, this was eroded over the long marriage by the wife's greater financial contributions, her role as primary caregiver, and her later inheritance. Consequently, the court assessed contributions to the total asset pool as 62.5% by the wife and 37.5% by the husband. Adjustments were made in favour of the husband under section 75(2) due to his age, limited earning capacity, and poorer health, resulting in an overall entitlement of 45% of the asset pool for the husband. The court ordered the sale of the former matrimonial home and provided detailed directions for its sale and the distribution of proceeds, including specific provisions for superannuation splitting and the allocation of debts.