Two Relationships, One Pool of Assets: Who Gets What?

What happens when someone separates from one de facto partner, starts a new relationship, and then separates again before the first property settlement has been finalised?

There may be two separate property claims, but both former partners could end up making claims against the same limited assets. That is what happened in Grove & Brassard [2026] FedCFamC2F 238. By the time the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia decided the case, only about $249,000 remained to be divided between the father and his two former partners.

The case shows why it is important to finalise a property settlement promptly, keep reliable financial records and protect assets from unnecessary losses after separation.

Two Relationships and Two Property Claims

The father was in a de facto relationship with the mother of his son from 2014 until December 2020. About six months later, he began another de facto relationship. That relationship ended in December 2024. The first partner had already started parenting and property proceedings in 2022. Those proceedings were still unresolved when the second partner made her own property claim.

Legally, there were two separate de facto property disputes. In practical terms, however, both claims concerned the same main asset: the remaining proceeds from the sale of a property purchased by the father and his second partner.

The Court heard both property disputes, together with the parenting case, in one trial.

Where Did the Money Come From?

Most of the available money could be traced back to a home the father had purchased in 2007, before either relationship began. During his relationship with the first partner, the father continued paying the mortgage and major expenses on that property. The first partner contributed to household costs, helped with renovations and made substantial homemaking and parenting contributions.

The father later sold that property. Approximately $445,000 from the sale was used towards the purchase of a new home with his second partner. That large initial contribution was the main reason the father received the largest share of the final property pool. However, the Court also had to recognise the contributions made by both former partners.

The First Partner’s Contributions

The first relationship lasted about six years and produced one child. Although the first partner was never an owner of the father’s home, she contributed to household expenses, helped with renovations and performed most of the cooking, cleaning, laundry and yard work. She also helped care for the father’s older children from another relationship.

After their son was born, she became his primary carer. Following separation, she carried almost all of the parenting and financial responsibility for the child. The father’s child support payments were limited and inconsistent. At the time of the hearing, the assessment was only $10 per week, and he was not paying it. These post-separation parenting responsibilities became very important when the Court considered the final division.

The Second Partner’s Contributions

The second relationship lasted about three and a half years. The second partner contributed to household expenses and renovations. She also paid approximately $8,500 to $9,000 towards debts in the father’s name, helping them obtain finance for their new property. However, some of her original claims were exaggerated.

She initially claimed that she had spent about $50,000 renovating the father’s first home. After reviewing her bank records, she reduced that claim to between $13,000 and $15,000. She also reduced her estimate of money spent on the second property from about $25,000 to approximately $5,000.

The Court accepted that she had made genuine contributions, but broadly relied on the lower figures. This is an important reminder that bank statements, invoices and receipts can be crucial in a family law property settlement.

The Effect of Family Violence

The Court made serious findings about the father’s alcohol abuse and family violence. It found that he had perpetrated family violence against both former partners and had exposed children to aggressive and abusive behaviour.

However, family violence does not automatically result in a larger property settlement. The Court must consider whether the violence affected a person’s ability to make financial, homemaking, parenting or other contributions.

For the first partner, the Court found there was not enough evidence to make a separate family violence adjustment. For the second partner, the outcome was different. The Court found that the father’s violence made her homemaking contributions more difficult. It also made it harder for her to clean, prepare and arrange the sale of the property after separation. Her contributions assessment included a 2% adjustment for the effect of family violence.

How the Court First Assessed Contributions

At the contributions stage, the Court assessed the parties’ interests in the remaining money as follows:

• Father: 80.5%

• First partner: 12.5%

• Second partner: 7%

  
  

The father’s high percentage reflected the substantial value he brought into both relationships through the home he had purchased in 2007. The Court then considered whether further adjustments were needed because of the parties’ present and future circumstances.

The First Partner’s Future Needs

The first partner received a further 22.5% adjustment. She had the ongoing care of the parties’ child and was likely to continue carrying most of the parenting and financial responsibility. The Court ordered that the child live with her and that she have sole decision-making responsibility. The father’s time with the child was limited to four professionally supervised visits each year, together with regular telephone calls. The Court also accepted that the first partner was unlikely to receive meaningful child support from the father in the foreseeable future. These factors increased her share from 12.5% to 35%.

How the Property Pool Was Reduced

The Court also considered the reduction in the value of the available property.

It did not find that selling the father’s original home or purchasing the second property was itself improper.

The problem was what happened after the second relationship ended. Neither the father nor the second partner continued paying the mortgage from around February 2025. Mortgage arrears reached approximately $15,000. There were also unpaid council and water charges, together with interest. The Court found that allowing these expenses to accumulate recklessly reduced the money available for division.

The first partner had played no part in those losses. She therefore received a further 3%, with 1.5% taken from the father and 1.5% from the second partner.

The Final Property Division

The remaining sale proceeds were then divided as follows:

• 38% to the first partner — approximately $94,613

• 56.5% to the father — approximately $140,675

• 5.5% to the second partner — approximately $13,694

The father still received the largest share because most of the original capital came from property he owned before either relationship. A property settlement is not intended to reward or punish a person for their behaviour. Conduct becomes relevant when it has a financial or practical effect, as it did here through family violence, parenting responsibilities and the reckless reduction of the asset pool.

Speak With a Property Settlement Lawyer

Grove & Brassard shows how difficult a property settlement can become when two relationships overlap financially. Early legal advice can help identify the property available for division, preserve assets, obtain proper financial disclosure and reduce the risk of competing claims becoming more complicated.

At Surge Legal, we act for clients across every stage of de facto and family law property disputes, from negotiations after separation through to contested multi-party hearings, as well as parenting matters where safety concerns arise. If your separation involves overlapping relationships, family violence or unresolved property issues, we encourage you to speak with our team early — before the pool shrinks.

📞 (02) 8551 7851 📩 Contact us online | Book a consultation

For more information, visit our Property Matters and Parenting Matters pages.

This article is a general summary of Grove & Brassard [2026] FedCFamC2F 238 for information purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. Please contact Surge Legal to discuss your individual circumstances.