What if I disagree that I am in a de facto relationship? Who decides?
What if I disagree that I am in a de facto relationship? Who decides?
De facto relationships are a topic, that lends itself to confusion & myth in Family Law, it is often misunderstood. If de facto status is of interest to you, we have written on when you are considered de facto here and on when a de facto relationship is deemed to have broken down here.
The 2024 matter of Piovene & Muhlfeld in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia addressed a dispute where Mr Piovene, the applicant, claimed, that he and Ms Muhlfeld, the respondent, had been in a de facto relationship for roughly twelve years, with their relationship ending in October 2022. Ms Muhlfeld completely disagreed, and her argument was that there had never been a de facto relationship to begin with. Both Mr Piovene and Ms Muhlfeld had children from their respective previous relationships but no children together and they did not jointly own property.
Mr Piovene’s argument
Mr Piovene argued that he and Ms Muhlfeld were in a relationship as he alleged that, between September 2010 and January 2013, he and Ms Muhlfeld spent alternate weekends and some weekdays together in one of Ms Muhlfeld’s property. From 2013 onwards Mr Piovene began living full-time in an apartment Ms Muhlfeld owned where he allegedthey spent 2-3 nights together each week.
Mr Piovene also argued has that he had become part of Ms Muhlfeld’s family unit as he had attended many of Ms Muhlfeld’s family events, including Christmas, birthdays, engagement parties, christenings, and overseas holidays. When travelling, Mr Piovene indicated that he and Ms Muhlfeld shared a room. He argued that they regularly spoke to each other over the phone when they were not together, attended social events and behaved as if they were a couple, including having an active sex life throughout the relationship. In addition to this, while they did not have any children, he was closely involved with Ms Muhlfeld’s children and grandchildren.
Mr Piovene then argued that he and Ms Muhlfeld had both supported and assisted each other financially, as he would maintain and do work on her properties, while she gave him a credit card, let him live in her apartment without paying rent and allowed him to borrow her cars.
Ms Muhlfeld’s argument
Ms Muhlfeld denied that she and Mr Piovene were in a de facto relationship and that he was instead her best friend. Ms Muhlfeld argued that the parties had never cohabitated as they had never shared a household and as, up until the end of 2014, she had been in a de facto relationship with someone else.
Ms Muhlfeld agreed that she had provided Mr Piovene with a credit card, allowed him to live rent free in her property and that he maintained and looked after her property. However, this was as he was her property manager not her partner. Ms Muhlfeld denied having an active sexual relationship with Mr Piovene, arguing she had had sex with Mr Piovene between 5 and 10 times over the course of 4 years.
While Ms Muhlfeld and Mr Piovene would travel together, they would only occasionally share a room while travelling rather than all the time.
The Court’s view
As there was a significant divergence in the parties’ evidence, it fell to the court to determine the most likely course of events. On being cross-examined, Mr Piovene’s credibility took a significant hit after it came to light that the tale he was spinning was contradicted by statements he had made in his previous family law proceedings with his ex-wife. The court found that Mr Piovene had failed to tell the whole truth in his previous proceedings and had done so to gain a financial advantage over his ex-wife.
However, it was not smooth sailing for Ms Muhlfeld as, the court found that she had understated Mr Piovene’s role as a property manager and that she denied knowing about a reference Mr Piovene had signed for her in a previous criminal law matter, in which she has been charged with offences of dishonesty and subsequently convicted, only for her to backtrack and acknowledge the reference’s existence.
The court also weighed a series of texts and WhatsApp messages between Mr Piovene and his friends that implied he was in a relationship with Ms Muhlfeld against two texts from Ms Muhlfeld’s daughter, in which she outright said Mr Piovene was her mother’s best friend and that he was not part of the family. The court found the daughter’s texts more convincing as they were blunt and to the point, establishing that, in the eyes of Ms Muhlfeld’s family, Mr Piovene was only a best friend.
The credibility of Mr Piovene’s evidence took a further hit when he did not call members of his extended family as witnesses, despite having given evidence that heavily featured them. The Court interpreted, Mr Piovene’s decision not to call his extended family as witnesses because their witness testimony would be detrimental to Mr Piovene’s claims.
The Court’s decision
The court ultimately determined that there never had been a relationship between Mr Piovene and Ms Muhlfeld on the basis that:
They did not share a residence on a full-time or part-time basis;
Their sexual relationship was minimal at best;
They did not have any joint bank accounts;
They did not have any joint property;
They had separate businesses;
Neither party marked themselves as being in a de facto relationship in their tax returns;
The evidence before the court did not support a mutual commitment to a shared life.
Why does it matter?
Muhlfeld & Piovene is significant as it peels back the curtain on the Court’s approach to determining whether a relationship is de facto, how the courts apply the legislation on de-facto relationships and how the credibility of witnesses, can shape the court’s interpretation of evidence and the events of the relationship.
Voice Lawyers: Your Guide in Family Law Matters
This article is general in nature and is not legal advice. If you need help dealing with a parenting dispute or require assistance with a family law matter, at Voice Lawyers we hear you.
If you are experiencing or contemplating separation, we suggest you seek legal advice as early as you can, even if you do not intend to separate for a few months or even years. We offer a 90 minutes early separation strategy session Voice Lawyers — Divorce, Separation and Family Law to prepare and inform clients of the process. Every family’s situation is different, and advice tailored to your specific circumstances can assist you in achieving your best possible outcome. We can assist if you would like a second opinion.
We help people navigate the complexities of family law with confident, practical advice. You can contact us at office@voicelawyers.com or call 02 9261 1954 to book a consultation to speak with one of our lawyers.
By Enda Byrne