The Facts

Wife buys winning lottery ticket after separating from husband

The couple had been married for 20 years at the time of separation in July 2008. They had two adult children and owned real estate together.

In early 2009, six months after they had separated and while they were still negotiating the terms of the property settlement between them, the wife purchased a lottery ticket and won $6 million.

The husband contended that the wife had purchased the lottery ticket with "joint funds", he had therefore contributed to the winnings and they should be considered a joint asset of the marriage. The husband sought 50% of his ex-wife's lottery winnings.

The wife disagreed, and the matter came before the Family Court for a determination on this and other matters that were in dispute between the couple.

Trial judge divides parties' assets into two pools

At trial, Her Honour Judge Stevenson divided the parties' property into two pools.

Pool 1 consisted of the parties' asset pool at the time of separation, which had a net value of $2,437,990. Pool 2 consisted of the wife's winnings and assets derived post-separation. This pool by that time had a net value of $3,368,530.

Her Honour divided Pool 1 equally (50:50), with each party receiving approximately $1.2 million.

Her Honour determined that although the husband made no contribution to the post-separation winnings, he was entitled to $500,000 or 10% of Pool 2 (90:10) due to factors such as the large disparity in the parties' financial resources and the husband's limited employment.

The husband appealed this decision to the Full Court of the Family Court.

case a - The case for the husband

case b - The case for the wife
  • The trial judge was wrong to divide the marital property into two pools to distinguish between the lottery winnings and the other property. My ex-wife bought the lottery ticket with joint funds, therefore the winnings should be part of an overall asset pool.
  • Given that I owned several properties when we got married, I should have received at least 66% of the other property. Giving me only 50% of Pool 1 was plainly wrong.
  • The trial judge was wrong in finding that I should have sole responsibility for the business in which my ex-wife and I were partners. The business has incurred a loss over the last three years, the only option is to sell it and it is unfair that I should be solely responsible for disposing of it.
  • My ex-wife has $1.2 million in unexplained expenditure since 2009. This amount should be added back as a notional asset against my ex-wife as part of the asset split.
  • The money I used to buy the lottery ticket did not come from "joint funds", it was my money. At the time of the win my ex-husband and I were leading separate lives and were financially independent of one another.
  • There was money owing on the properties my husband owned at the time we married. If this were not the case, he would have produced evidence to prove the properties were unencumbered. He did not do this.
  • I have had nothing to do with the business in the last five years. It is fair for my husband to continue with the sole responsibility and decision-making for the business that he's exercised over this period.
  • I have accounted for the bulk of my expenditure since 2009. The remaining amount is far less than my husband's unexplained expenditure.

So, which case won?
Cast your judgment below to find out

Vote case A – the case for the husband
Vote case B – the case for the wife

Simone Timbs
Divorce and separation
Stacks Law Firm

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.