Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Step 2 of the four-step framework asks: what did each party contribute to the relationship and the property? The answer drives the percentage split before any future-needs adjustment. The Settlement Planner’s Contributions tab handles this step.

​
Four contribution categories

Contributions fall into four categories, traditionally weighted holistically:

Financial

Money brought into the relationship, income earned during, capital improvements funded, and post-separation financial contributions. The category most people think of first.

Non-financial

Renovations, capital improvements (sweat equity), upkeep of properties or businesses, restoration of vehicles, value-adding work that doesn’t show on a payslip.

Parental

Care of children — primary or shared. Recognised as a substantial contribution under the Pierce v Pierce [1999] FamCA 1314 line of authority.

Homemaker

Household management, planning, cooking, organising, social co-ordination. Equally weighted with financial contribution under Pierce.

​
The case-law line

The leading cases on contributions:
CaseEstablished
Mallet v Mallet (1984) 156 CLR 605Rejected automatic equality as a starting point; held that homemaker and parental contributions must be recognised “in a substantial way”, not in token form; each case assessed on its individual facts
Pierce v Pierce [1999] FamCA 1314Non-financial + parental + homemaker contributions are weighted holistically with financial contributions, not subordinated
Polonius & York [2010] FamCAFC 228Significant initial contributions get discounted by relationship length
Bonnici v Bonnici [1992] FamCA 86Initial contributions can erode over time as joint contributions accumulate
Kowaliw v Kowaliw [1981] FamCA 70Negative contributions (wastage, gambling) can be brought to account
Singerson & Joans [2014] FamCAFC 238Post-separation appreciation can be relevant where one party’s continued contributions drove it
Kennon v Kennon [1997] FamCA 27Family violence during the relationship can reduce the perpetrator’s contributions assessment
These remain the leading authorities post-10-June-2025. The amendments codify the four-step framework but the case-law on contributions retains its weight.

​
What changed on 10 June 2025

The codified framework adds:
  • Family violence as an express contributions consideration. The Kennon line is now reinforced by statute. The court must consider how family violence (including economic and financial abuse, dowry abuse, controlling finances, preventing employment) has affected a party’s contributions and capacity to contribute.
  • Asset wastage and reckless behaviour assessed expressly. The Kowaliw line is codified and broadened. Reckless financial behaviour (not just deliberate dissipation) is in scope.
  • Pre-relationship contributions across the spectrum. Both financial and non-financial contributions before the relationship are now expressly recognised in the framework.

​
How the platform’s Contributions tab works

The Settlement Planner asks structured questions per category. Per party.

​
Financial contributions

  • What did you bring into the relationship? (savings, properties, businesses, super)
  • What did you earn during the relationship, year by year?
  • What financial gifts or inheritances were received?
  • What property improvements did you fund?
  • What did you contribute post-separation?

​
Non-financial contributions

  • What renovations or improvements did you do yourself?
  • What value-adding work did you contribute to a property or business?
  • What other non-financial contributions to the asset pool can you describe?

​
Parental contributions

  • What care of the children did you provide?
  • What proportion was primary care vs shared?
  • Did either party reduce work hours or career to provide parental care?
  • What care continues post-separation?

​
Homemaker contributions

  • Who handled household running?
  • Who planned and managed?
  • Who organised social, family, and community connections?
  • How did roles change over time?
The platform produces a structured contributions narrative from these inputs.

​
The percentage output

The output of Step 2 is a percentage split based on contributions alone — for example, “65/35 in favour of User on contributions”. This is rarely the final answer; Step 3 (future needs) usually adjusts. The platform doesn’t generate the percentage automatically. It produces the structured contributions analysis; the percentage assessment is yours (with the platform’s AI smart suggestions offering reasoning and case-law parallels).

​
Common contributions issues

Don’t undervalue homemaker / parental contributions. Post-Pierce, these are weighted equally with financial. Many self-represented parties — particularly the ones who held employment during the relationship — instinctively undervalue the non-financial side. The platform’s prompts surface this risk.
Initial contributions erode but don’t disappear. A pre-relationship $300K deposit on the family home in a 20-year relationship is still a contribution, but a smaller one than at year 2. The Polonius / Bonnici line frames the erosion. The platform’s prompts ask for reasonable estimates, not absolute values.
Family violence affects contributions assessment. Post-10-June-2025, this is express in the statute. Where there’s an FV history (consistent with your Master Case File disclosure), the platform’s prompts ask whether the violence affected the other party’s contributions or capacity to contribute, and how. This is a sensitive question — only answer it if you’re comfortable; the platform doesn’t pressure.

​
Sample contributions narrative

A simplified output for a 12-year marriage might read:
Contributions assessment: User contributed approximately 55% on contributions alone, Other approximately 45%. Initial contributions: User brought 80Ksavingsandaone−thirdshareinafamilybusiness;Otherbrought80K savings and a one-third share in a family business; Other brought 20K savings and personal property of approximately $30K. Initial contribution disparity established but eroding under Polonius / Bonnici reasoning over a 12-year relationship. Financial contributions during relationship: User earned approximately 1.4Mtotalacrosstheperiod;Otherearnedapproximately1.4M total across the period; Other earned approximately 850K. Contribution to mortgage and improvements approximately 60/40. Inheritances received: User received $50K from father’s estate in year 8. Non-financial contributions: User undertook two substantial renovation projects at the family home in 2019 and 2022; estimated value-add $80K. Other undertook landscaping and maintenance throughout. Parental contributions: Children primarily cared for by Other for the first 5 years; shared after both children started school. Other reduced to part-time work during the early years. Homemaker contributions: Other held primary responsibility for household running throughout. User contributed actively but supplementarily. No family violence factors raised by either party.
The Settlement Planner produces narratives in this style; you edit, the platform’s AI suggestions offer alternatives.

​
What Step 2 will not do

  • It will not assign the percentage for you. The platform structures the analysis; the percentage is yours (or, for contested matters, the court’s).
  • It will not assess strategic considerations. Whether to argue for a higher percentage at Step 2 vs accepting a lower percentage in exchange for a higher Step 3 future-needs adjustment is strategy.
  • It will not replace expert valuations. Where contributions involve businesses or trusts, expert input is often needed.

​
What’s next

Step 3 — Future needs

The s75(2) factors that adjust the contributions split.

Step 1 — Asset pool

Step back if the pool itself isn’t settled yet.

The section 79 framework

Full statutory + case-law context.

AI smart suggestions

AI-driven contributions reasoning.