Marriage is a clear and consensual legal process, but determining if two people are in a de facto relationship can be much more complex. The case of Jones & Michetti illustrates this complexity, as the applicant claimed to be in two de facto relationships simultaneously.
Jones & Michetti
In the case of Jones & Michetti [2022] FedCFamClF 771, the Court examined a long-term relationship that lasted around 16 years, involving both sexual intimacy and financial generosity. A key complication was that Ms. Jones, the applicant, was in two relationships simultaneously, one of which was a de facto relationship with a third party.
The Relationships
Ms. Jones claimed she was in two concurrent de facto relationships: one with her long-term female partner, “Ms. B,” and the other with Mr. Michetti, the respondent. She sought a property settlement or spousal maintenance from Mr. Michetti, asserting that she was in a de facto relationship with him.
Ms. Jones and Ms. B had been in an open de facto relationship since 2002. In 2003, they began a sexual polyamorous relationship with Mr. Michetti. This polyamorous relationship eventually ended, but Ms. Jones and Mr. Michetti continued their relationship while she remained in a de facto relationship with Ms. B. The relationships were not exclusive, and all parties had sexual relationships with others at various times.
Financial and Social Aspects
Over the years, the nature of Ms. Jones and Mr. Michetti’s relationship evolved. They socialised on weekends, shared vacations, and Mr. Michetti funded a significant portion of the expenses. Ms. Jones began staying overnight at Mr. Michetti’s residence regularly, and although they were financially independent, Mr. Michetti paid for holidays, luxury items, and contributed at least $30,000 towards Ms. Jones’s medical expenses.
In 2005, Mr. Michetti drafted a will naming Ms. Jones as his “partner” and allocated approximately $1.4 million to her in the event of his death. However, he later changed his will to remove her as a beneficiary. Their relationship ended in late 2019 when Ms. Jones started a relationship with another third party.
The Court’s Decision
The Court, in accordance with sections 90RD and 4AA of the Family Law Act, could not establish the existence of a de facto relationship between Ms. Jones and Mr. Michetti and dismissed the application. Several factors influenced this decision:
- Financial Independence: Despite Mr. Michetti covering travel and luxury expenses, Ms. Jones was generally employed and did not depend on him for daily expenses. They held no joint property or bank accounts.
- Lack of Exclusivity: The relationship lacked exclusivity as Ms. Jones was also in a de facto relationship with Ms. B, and both parties maintained separate residences.
- Public Perception: The Court found that the parties did not present themselves as a couple publicly, similar to the findings in the case of Jonah & White [2011] FamCA 221.
Case Implications
The Jones & Michetti case underscores the importance for polyamorous couples to clearly define their relationships. It highlights the potential legal and financial ramifications if a relationship is or is not found to be a de facto relationship.
A financial agreement can be entered into before, during, or after a de facto relationship. It is crucial for individuals in polyamorous or non-traditional relationships to establish such agreements to ensure mutual understanding, security, and asset protection.
If you are in a polyamorous relationship and need legal advice, My Legal Crunch Lawyers can help. Contact us today to book a free consultation and speak with one of our experienced lawyers.
