Lottery Wins and The Nature of The Relationship of The Parties at The Time

In Eufrosin & Eufrosin [2014] FamCAFC 191 (2 October 2014) the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Thackray, Murphy, Aldridge JJ) dealt with the issue of a lottery win in a Family law property adjustment.

Relevantly the Court found:

• “The [lottery win] which came into the husband’s hands did so at a time when the parties were married and still living together. The moneys for the purchase of the ticket came from the husband’s earnings. I am of the view that a win in the lottery is in no different position to the acquisition of a piece of furniture, a block of land or other asset purchased or acquired by parties during a marriage with funds provided by either or both of them. … Marriage is for most partners an economic union. … I have no doubt that the purchase of lottery tickets was in furtherance of a joint matrimonial purpose and therefore any resultant win in the lottery must be regarded as a matrimonial asset. … Although the ticket was purchased by the husband, it was so purchased with the object and hope of achieving a matrimonial objective and I propose therefore to regard same as a matrimonial asset.“ 1 2
• “… In the ordinary run of marriages a [lottery] ticket is purchased by one or other of the parties from money which he or she happens to have at that particular time. That fact should not determine the issue. Where both parties are in receipt of income and where their marriage is predicated upon the basis of each contributing their income towards the joint partnership constituted by their marriage, the purchase of the ticket would be regarded as a purchase from joint funds in the same way as any other purchase within that context and would be treated accordingly … Where one party is working and the other is not the same conclusion would ordinarily apply because that is the mode of partnership selected by the parties … There may be cases where the parties have so conducted their affairs and/or so expressed their intentions that this would not be the appropriate conclusion …” 3 4
• The source of funds should not “determine the issue” of how a lottery win should be treated for s 79 purposes. 5 6
• What is relevant, is the nature of the relationship of the parties at the time the lottery ticket was purchased.  7
• Regardless of the source of the funds, at the time the wife purchased the [lottery] ticket, the “joint endeavour” that had been the marriage of the parties had dissolved; there was no longer a “common use” of property.
• Rather, the parties were applying funds for their respective individual purposes. 8

1. Anastasio and Anastatsio (1981) FLC 91-093 per Baker J said (at 76,649-76,650) 
2. Eufrosin & Eufrosin (2014) FamCAFC 191 (2 October 2014) per Thackray, Murphy, Aldridge JJ (9) 
3. Zyk and Zyk (1997) FLC 92-644 per Nicholson CJ, Fogarty and Baker JJ (at 82,515) 
4. Eufrosin & Eufrosin (2014) FamCAFC 191 (2 October 2014) per Thackray, Murphy, Aldridge JJ (10) 
5. Zyk and Zyk (1997) FLC 92-644) 
6. Eufrosin & Eufrosin (2014) FamCAFC 191 (2 October 2014) per Thackray, Murphy, Aldridge JJ (11) 
7. Eufrosin & Eufrosin (2014) FamCAFC 191 (2 October 2014) per Thackray, Murphy, Aldridge JJ (11) 
8. Eufrosin & Eufrosin (2014) FamCAFC 191 (2 October 2014) per Thackray, Murphy, Aldridge JJ (11)