Secret sale of marital assets leaves the opposing party with pennies

Recent NSW Court Case: Parental Responsibility and division of marital assets and debts Claymore v Claymore [2026] FedCFamC1F 545

Please note, out of respect and for the safety of the children, their names and ages will be withheld.

The case concerned the Family Law Courts and their determination of the custody arrangement of children A and B, as well as the separation of marital assets and debts.

An important aspect of this case arose with respect to the children's differing behavioural issues and their own preferred parent.

Child A, the eldest child, had been subject to multiple personal issues in relation to his parents' separation and, in due course, sided with his father. However, both parents admitted the child's behaviour could be extreme at times. On multiple occasions, the child left home and was absent from school; he also had an uncontrollable temperament, and police had been called to the home.

Child B, the youngest child, was diagnosed with ADHD. His father did not accept this diagnosis; they had a complicated relationship, and it was stated that there were instances of abuse. The child had a closer relationship with the mother and was very aware of the parents' relationship and their emotions.

On the decision of parental custody, Justice Boyle decided that child A should live solely with the father. Child B is to live with the mother and is provided with interval supervised visits every alternate Saturday with the father.

The separation of marital assets and debts was another issue that arose in the proceedings. The concern was relevant to the male partner's construction company and his debts after separation. It was concluded from cross-examination that the female partner had no true knowledge of the financial position of their personal and business accounts.

The male partner sold a combination of property assets and spent the proceeds without the female's knowledge, as well as transferring a large sum of their shared personal money into the business account, again without her knowledge.

In Justice Boyle's reasoning, he took into consideration multiple mitigating factors, including the male partner's failure to contribute to the shared mortgage repayments as well as his business financial position and the female who prepared the marital home for sale and continued to repay the mortgage.

Justice Boyle concluded that a fair division of assets would be to keep their individual superannuation; however, 73% of the shared assets would go towards the female and 27% towards the male.

In Justice Boyle's remarks, he stated the importance of transparency and responsibility when it comes to admitting evidence concerning financial matters in the Family Law Court, not only for integrity and efficiency but for all involved.