A Victorian woman chasing money from her former husband’s lottery win lost her bid in Family Court and she is now unable to receive any of the cash.

The case came before three judges of the Family Court on Tuesday after the wife, who can only be named as Mrs Elford, tried to gain a slice of her blind husband's winnings.

Mrs Elford, then 35, and her husband, then 57, started living together in 2003 and married in 2007.

Less than a year after they were married Mr Elford won $622,842 in the lottery, the court heard.

View photos A divorced and blind Victorian is able to keep his entire lottery winnings despite a decade-long marriage. Photo: Getty Images More





Mr Elford's TattsLotto winnings were placed into term deposit along with his savings and an inheritance from his mother, which grew with interest to more than $1 million.

The winnings were deemed a financial asset and were kept separate during the marriage along with a mortgage and credit card debt held by Mrs Elford.

Evidence in court suggested the couple never opened a joint bank account together and they kept their finances separate.

In 2011, Mr Elford suffered a stroke leaving him blind and unable to drive or read.

Mrs Elford ended the marriage less than a year after the incident.

He now pays carers to assist him with various household tasks and requires kidney dialysis three times a week.

When the couple divorced, Mrs Elford was paid out $51,000 in addition to a $190,000 slice of the inheritance.

View photos Inside a packed Family courtroom in an unrelated case. Photo: Twitter/Family Court Aust More

Mrs Elford argued in court that these winnings should be seen as a joint contribution because they were also in a relationship at the time even though they decided to keep their fin­ances separate during their marriage.

However, Mrs Elford did acknowledged her former husband had bought the ticket without her help or contribution on the day, the court heard.

Mrs Elford also claimed Mr Elford was financially responsible for the support of her three children, but the court notes revealed there was no obligation on his behalf.

The three senior judges denied her appeal and said both parties should pay their own costs.

RELATED VIDEOS:





