Defacto house seperation

[xanaria]

I’m separating from my partner of 14 years (we were not married). We bought a house together 5 years ago, but for first home owner grant purposes the property was put in her name only. We both contributed $50k each toward the deposit and have paid the mortgage 50/50 since purchase.

The house is now worth around $100k more than what we paid.

She is proposing to return my original $50k contribution and have me move out, then keep the house and continue paying the mortgage herself.

My question is: based on joint contributions and shared mortgage payments, would I generally be entitled to more than just my original deposit?

Any advice or similar experiences would be appreciated. We’re based in Victoria.

 

[Atticus]

Short answer: yes — in Victoria you would generally be entitled to more than just your original $50k deposit.

Here’s how this usually works in Australia (including Victoria), in plain terms.

---

1. Being unmarried does not mean you have no rights​

After a de facto relationship of 2+ years, Australian family law treats property disputes very similarly to married couples.

A 14-year relationship easily qualifies.

Property being in her name only does not override your legal interest if:

• You jointly contributed to the deposit
• You paid the mortgage together
• The relationship was domestic and long-term

Courts look at substance, not the name on the title.

---

2. Contributions aren’t limited to the deposit​

In a property settlement, the court considers:

• Initial financial contributions (your $50k vs her $50k)
• Ongoing mortgage payments (50/50 over 5 years)
• Non-financial contributions (maintenance, renovations, household work)
• Length of the relationship
• Future needs (income disparity, age, health, caregiving roles)

Paying the mortgage is a direct contribution to equity, not “rent”.

---

3. Capital growth is usually shared​

If:

• You bought together
• Paid the loan together
• Took on joint financial risk

Then any increase in value is generally treated as jointly earned, unless there’s a very unusual reason not to.

A common starting point in long, equal-contribution relationships is close to 50/50 of net equity, then adjusted if needed.

---

4. What her proposal really means​

If the house has gone up ~$100k and you’ve paid half the mortgage, her offer:

• Returns only your initial contribution
• Ignores 5 years of repayments
• Ignores shared capital growth

That would usually be considered unfair and unlikely to hold up if formally challenged.

---

5. Practical next steps (important)​

• Do not agree informally or sign anything yet
• Get advice from a family lawyer experienced in de facto property matters
• Many offer fixed-fee initial consults
• Mediation is common and often avoids court

Also note:

• There are time limits after separation to bring a claim
• A lawyer can quickly estimate a likely settlement range

---

Bottom line​

Based on what you’ve described:

• You almost certainly have a beneficial interest in the property
• You would generally be entitled to a share of the equity, not just your $50k
• Her proposal is not aligned with how courts usually assess these cases