ACKLAND & GARRAH
[2012] FMCAfam 317
•4 April 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ACKLAND & GARRAH | [2012] FMCAfam 317 |
| FAMILY LAW – Property – undefended – Husband living in former matrimonial home – Husband took no part in proceedings brought by Wife who is now living in New Zealand – assessment of initial contributions – impact of failed business venture – applied two list approach. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.75 and 79 |
| Aleksovski & Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705 C & C (2000) FLC 93-220 Hickey & Hickey & Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143 In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595 In the Marriage of Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335 In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626 |
| Applicant: | MS ACKLAND |
| Respondent: | MR GARRAH |
| File number: | SYC 2535 of 2011 |
| Judgment of: | Sexton FM |
| Hearing date: | 22 March 2012 |
| Date of last submission: | 22 March 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 4 April 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr T. Hodgson |
| Respondent | No Appearance |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The applicant Wife forthwith cause a sealed copy of these Orders be served by way of personal service on the respondent Husband.
The Wife file an affidavit of service to verify compliance with Order (1).
These orders be stayed for a period of 42 days from the date of filing of the affidavit of service in accordance with Order (2) herein.
Within 28 days of being served with a sealed copy of these Orders, the Husband file and serve any application to vary or set aside these orders with an affidavit in support and Financial Statement.
The Wife be appointed trustee for sale of the property at Property B in the State of New South Wales [the [B] property] and have the sole right to give effect to the choosing of an agent and/or auctioneer (if necessary), the choosing of a solicitor or conveyancer to act on the sale, the choice of the listing price, reserve price (if applicable) and, the agreed price for the sale of the former matrimonial home:
(a)The Wife be empowered to sign all documents in respect of the [B] property including but not limited to entering into an agency agreement on behalf of both parties, entering into a costs agreement with a solicitor or conveyancer on behalf of both parties, entering into a contract and signing a transfer in respect of the said sale on behalf of both parties;
(b)Cause the [B] property to be sold for the best price reasonably obtainable.
The Wife instruct the conveyancing solicitor appointed in relation to the sale of the [B] property to act for the parties in relation to the outstanding debt to [A].
Upon completion of the sale of the home, the proceeds be distributed in the following order and priority:
(a)In payment of agents commission and selling costs;
(b)In payment of legal costs associated with the sale;
(c)In adjustment of rates and other outgoings in accordance with usual conveyancing practice;
(d)In payment of the amount necessary to discharge the loans to the Commonwealth Bank secured by way of mortgage on the [B] property;
(e)In discharge of the debt to Service Finance Corporation Ltd in joint names secured by way of caveat on the [B] property;
(f)In discharge of the debt to [Q] Credit Union held in joint names;
(g)In discharge of the debt to [A] in joint names;
(h)In payment of $3,252 to the Husband;
(i)In payment of the balance as to 25% to the Husband and 75% to the Wife.
The Husband cooperate with the agent by making a key available to the agent and making the [B] property available for inspection to prospective purchasers as requested by the agent from time to time.
The Husband ensure the [B] property is in a clean and presentable state for prospective purchasers.
The Husband vacate the [B] property no later than 7 days prior to the date of settlement of the sale of the [B] property.
The Husband be entitled to retain the contents of the [B] property and his personal possessions.
The Wife be entitled to the proceeds of bank accounts in her name, home contents in her possession, the car in her name, the jewellery and personal items in her possession.
Each party be entitled to retain all superannuation entitlements held in his/her own name.
Except as otherwise provided in these orders, the Husband and the Wife retain all other items of property currently in the possession or control of each of them respectively.
The Wife be responsible for repayment of the debt to her sister and repayment of the debt in her name to the [Q] Credit Union.
Except as otherwise provided in these orders, the Husband and the Wife each remain liable for any debts, howsoever arising, in their own name at the date of these Orders and in this respect shall indemnify, keep indemnified and hold harmless the other from any liability in relation thereto.
In the event that the Husband or the Wife fails, refuses or neglects to execute any deed, document or instrument necessary to give effect to these orders, then pursuant to s.106A, a Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia is hereby appointed to execute all deeds, documents and instruments in the name of the defaulting party and to do all such acts and things necessary to give validity and operation to such deeds, documents and instruments.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Ackland & Garrah is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYC 2535 of 2011
| MS ACKLAND |
Applicant
And
| MR GARRAH |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This case concerns property adjustment.
The parties separated in March 2006 when the Wife left the former matrimonial home at [B], after approximately 5 years of cohabitation. There are no children of the marriage. The Husband is presently living in the former matrimonial home, an apartment in [B]. The Husband has not participated in these proceedings.
The Wife seeks an order for the sale of the former matrimonial home, so that the loan secured on the home in the parties’ names can be discharged, and outstanding debts can be repaid. The Wife cannot obtain credit in her current circumstances. The Wife has been living in New Zealand since shortly after separation, and would like to move on with her life.
Despite being on notice of the proceedings, the Husband has not filed any documents in the proceedings, nor has he made an appearance on any occasion the matter has been before the court.
The Wife is seeking approximately 90% of the known net asset pool.
Background
The Wife is 43 years and the Husband 50 years. They started living together in March 2001 and married [in] 2002. The parties separated in March 2006 and divorced in December 2010.
The Wife was employed full time as a [occupation omitted] during the course of cohabitation, and after separation she was offered a position with her same employer in New Zealand. She remained in that position until the end of 2011, when she chose to resign. She intends to seek another position in the same field upon her return to New Zealand when these proceedings have been finalised.
I accept the Wife’s evidence that the Husband was a casual [occupation omitted] until the parties purchased a [omitted] business in 2004. The Husband then worked in the [omitted] business for approximately 15 months, but the business failed, and the Husband walked away from it. While the Wife continued to work in her full time position outside the [omitted] business, the Wife was left to manage the staff of the [business] and do her best to pay the bills, while trying to find a buyer for the business. In July 2006 the Wife closed down the [omitted] business, leaving the parties with significant debt. Since then, the Wife believes the Husband may have worked intermittently as a contract [omitted] although she is not certain. According to subpoenaed bank records of the Husband, the Husband currently receives a Newstart Allowance from Centrelink.
History of Proceedings
The Wife commenced these proceedings for property adjustment by application filed in this Court on 27 April 2011. The matter was listed before me for the first time on 12 July 2011. The Wife appeared represented by counsel, and the Court was satisfied as to service. There was no appearance by or for the Husband. Given I was satisfied that the Husband had thrown the Court documents to the ground when served, I ordered the Wife to forward the documents by prepaid post to the Husband at the former matrimonial home. I ordered the Husband to file and serve his responding material. The matter was listed for undefended hearing on 14 December 2011 and the Wife was given liberty to apply in the event the Husband decided to participate in the proceedings. On 14 December 2011 the Wife appeared represented by counsel, but required more time to prepare her evidence. There was no appearance by the Husband and the matter was listed again for undefended hearing on 22 March 2012. The Wife was ordered to serve on the Husband the Minute of Order she would seek at hearing, as well as a sealed copy of the Orders made on 14 December 2011. I am satisfied on the affidavit evidence of Mr C, accountant, that the Wife complied with this Order[1].
[1] Affidavit of Mr C sworn on 16 March 2012
On 22 March 2012, the Wife again appeared represented by counsel and there was no appearance by the Husband. The court was satisfied that the Husband was on notice of the Court’s intention to proceed with the Wife’s application in his absence on that day.
I am satisfied that the Husband has gone to some lengths to avoid these proceedings. I accept the Wife’s evidence that the Husband remains living in the [B] property. Mr C deposes to sending to the Husband by registered mail to that address at different times, a number of letters and documents relating to these proceedings, and to the Husband sending them back to him unopened[2].
[2] Affidavits of Mr C sworn on 14 December 2011 and 16 March 2012
The matter proceeded on an undefended basis on 22 March 2012.
Credit
I find inconsistencies in the Wife’s affidavit material as to the date of separation and the date she left the former matrimonial home. However, in her oral evidence, the Wife impressed me as a frank and honest witness. The Wife’s responses to questions were given openly and thoughtfully. I accepted the Wife’s oral evidence in its entirety.
Issues
The approach to the determination of an application under section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 is well established by authority[3], and involves consideration of these questions:
[3] In the Marriage of Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626; In the Marriage of Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335; In the Marriage of Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595; Hickey & Hickey & Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143
a)What were the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties and their values at the time of hearing?
b)What were the financial and non-financial contributions made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of each party to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of the property of the parties?
c)What was the contribution made by each party to the welfare of the family including contributions made in the capacity of homemaker or parent?
d)What is the effect, if any, of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of each party?
e)What matters referred to in sub-section 75(2) of the Act are relevant and what adjustment, if any, should be made as a result of these factors?
f)Have there been any other orders made affecting a child or either party and is child support payable or likely to be payable in the future for the children of the marriage?
g)After consideration of these matters, is it just and equitable to make the actual orders?
What were the assets, liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the time of hearing and their values?
I accept the unchallenged evidence of the Wife in relation to the values of the assets and liabilities held by each party at the date of hearing, to the extent of her knowledge.
Where the wife adduced documentary evidence to verify values, I have included the references as footnotes. In relation to the [B] property, the wife estimated its value by taking the average of two market appraisals annexed to her affidavit.[4]
[4] Annexure J to Wife’s affidavit sworn on 24 February 2012
On the basis of the wife’s evidence, I am satisfied the known assets and liabilities of the parties available for division between them as at the date of hearing are as identified in the following table:
| Assets and liabilities at the date of hearing | $ |
| Property [B] (joint names)[5] | 722,500.00 |
| Kiwi Bank Ltd accounts (wife’s name)[6] | 9,545.00 |
| Golf Volkswagon motor vehicle (wife’s name)[7] | 8,000.00 |
| Household furniture (in possession of wife)[8] | 5,000.00 |
| Jewellery (in possession of wife)[9] | 500.00 |
| Household contents (in possession of Husband) | Not known |
| Other items held by Husband | Not known |
| Commonwealth Bank Ltd (2 loans) (Joint)[10] | (352,943.00) |
| [Q] Credit Union (Joint)[11] | (13,571.00) |
| [Q] Credit Union (Wife)[12] | (605.00) |
| Lease debt relating to [omitted] business – [A][13] | (73,548.00) |
| Debt to Wife’s sister Ms B (Wife)[14] | (9,432.00) |
| Service Finance Corporation Ltd debt (secured by caveat on home)(joint)[15] | (8,000.00) |
| Other assets and liabilities held by the Husband | Not known |
| Total known net pool excluding superannuation | 287,446.00 |
| [K] Superannuation Fund (Wife)[16] | 25,543.00 |
| [H] Pty Ltd (Wife)[17] | 78,421.00 |
| Superannuation held by Husband | Not known |
| Total known net pool including superannuation | 391,410.00 |
[5] Ibid
[6] Annexure K to Wife’s affidavit sworn on 24 February 2012
[7] Financial Statement of the Wife sworn on 24 February 2012
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Annexure G to Wife’s affidavit sworn on 24 February 2012
[11] Annexure F to Wife’s affidavit sworn on 24 February 2012
[12] Ibid
[13] Annexure M to Wife’s affidavit sworn on 24 February 2012
[14] Affidavit of Ms B sworn on 13 March 2012
[15] Financial Statement of the Wife sworn on 24 February 2012
[16] Annexure L of the Wife’s affidavit sworn on 24 February 2012
[17] Ibid
Contributions
The court must consider all the contributions, both financial and non-financial to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of the parties’ assets, as well as to the welfare of the family before and after separation. The Full Court said in Aleksovski & Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705[18]:
It is therefore necessary…[to] weigh and assess the contributions of all kinds and from all sources made by each of the parties throughout the period of their cohabitation and then translate such assessment into a percentage of the overall property of the parties
[18] At 83,437
The Wife does not seek a splitting order in relation to her superannuation entitlement. She adduces no evidence as to the Husband’s superannuation interests. Given the short duration of the parties’ cohabitation period, and given that the Wife has contributed to superannuation for over 12 years outside the cohabitation period, I have decided it is appropriate to adopt the 2 pools approach to the superannuation and non-superannuation assets of the parties. The majority of the Full Court in C & C [19] said there is no binding principle as to the exercise of the Court’s discretion in deciding whether a one list or two list approach should be adopted.
[19] (2000) FLC 93-220
Financial contributions. The wife gives only a brief financial history of the marriage in her affidavits sworn on 26 April 2011, 14 December 2011 and 24 February 2012. I therefore gave the Wife’s counsel leave to adduce further evidence from the Wife orally. I accept the truth of the Wife’s unchallenged evidence and now set out my findings.
Initial contributions. At the commencement of cohabitation in March 2001, the Wife owned a car and held funds in the sum of approximately AUD$185,000 in the United Kingdom, as a result of inheritances from each of her parents. The Husband owned a half share in the property at Property [B] with his brother Mr G, subject to mortgage. The Wife adduces no evidence of the value of the property at that time. The only valuation evidence available relates to 2004, 3 years after cohabitation commenced when the Husband’s interest had a value of approximately $150,000. It is therefore likely that the Wife brought in assets with a higher value than assets brought in by the Husband.
Financial contributions during cohabitation. In February 2004, the parties purchased the Husband’s brother’s interest in the [B] property and thereafter held the property as joint tenants. At that time, the property had a value of $490,000 and a net value of $304,470 after deducting the mortgage balance of $185,530. The Husband’s interest in the [B] property as at February 2004 (3 years after the commencement of cohabitation) was therefore approximately $150,000. The parties borrowed approximately $300,000 from the Commonwealth Bank to discharge the loan held in the names of the Husband and his brother, and to purchase the Husband’s brother’s half share, including fees and costs relating to the purchase.[20]
[20] Annexure B of Wife’s affidavit sworn on 14 December 2011
In July 2004, the parties paid $100,000 for a [omitted] business in [B] known as “[T]” via a company known as Ackland and Garrah, incorporated by the parties for the purpose of operating the business. The parties were the sole directors and shareholders of the company. They extended the [B] property mortgage to obtain the purchase funds. The [omitted] business opened on 1 October 2004 and closed for trading on 14 July 2006, a few months after the Wife left the former matrimonial home and the parties separated. The parties suffered a major financial loss. The company assets were sold for $15,000 and those funds were used to pay employee entitlements and some of the trade creditors. The balance of the trade creditors were not paid and a number remain outstanding. The company was deregistered in November 2007. Between September 2004 and December 2006, the Wife transferred the whole of her AUD$185,000 in funds from the United Kingdom to contribute to the costs of operating the business, including making the rental payments of $8,000 a month. In addition the Wife borrowed nearly $19,000 from her sister in November 2005 to assist with business expenses.
Employment.The Wife was employed full time as a [omitted] at a company known as [omitted] (the company later changed its name) at the time the parties commenced cohabitation. She was earning approximately $60,000 per annum. The Wife continued to work full time for the same company throughout the period of cohabitation and was earning approximately $85,000 per annum at the time the parties separated. Throughout the whole period of cohabitation, the Wife contributed her income to the mortgage repayments, and to the expenses of the household. In addition to her full time position, the Wife looked after the books of the [omitted] business and worked in the [business] on weekends.
The Husband was unemployed when the parties started living together. Subsequently he worked casually as a [omitted]. Between 2001 and 2003 the Husband spent 18 months in Ireland living with his mother because of problems with his visa status in Australia. The Wife met the Husband’s half of the mortgage repayments at the [B] unit and his share of expenses during that 18 month period.
The Husband worked at the [omitted] business from October 2004 until October/November 2005 when it was evident the business could not survive and he stopped going to work. From the time the Husband walked away from the business, the Wife took responsibility for its operation outside her own working hours. The Wife recalls the Husband having occasional casual jobs in [omitted] or as a [omitted] during that period. By the time the Wife was able to close the business in July 2006, the parties had been separated for several months.
Financial contributions after separation. At separation in March 2006, the Wife left the [B] unit and paid outstanding accounts for the [B] property, in total of more than $9,000. As already noted, the Wife continued to work full time, meet the debts of the [omitted] business to the extent she had the capacity to do so, until she was able to close the business in July 2006. By then, the parties owed more than $70,000 in rent to the landlords [A] as well as tens of thousands of dollars to other creditors. The Wife alone attended mediation with the landlords to try to settle that debt, but as she was not in a financial position to discharge even a discounted debt, the matter did not settle and the debt remains outstanding. The Wife has not heard from the landlord since the mediation, but would like to negotiate a settlement of this outstanding debt to [A] when the [B] property is sold.
After the [omitted] business stopped trading, the Wife repaid debts she had personally guaranteed and credit card debts in relation to the business in excess of $100,000.00. On the evidence available, I am unable to establish by how much the Wife has reduced the balances of joint loans since separation.
In addition to business loan repayments, the Wife paid over $47,000 towards the mortgage on the [B] property until September 2007. By letter dated 27 September 2007, the Wife’s counsel wrote to the Husband to advise him the Wife could no longer afford to meet the mortgage repayments or outgoings on the home. The Wife does not know how the mortgage repayments have been made since then. From time to time, the Wife has received notice from the Bank that payments have been in arrears. At one stage, the Bank was trying to evict the Husband. The Wife does not know whether or not the Husband has had employment since separation, but he is currently in receipt of Newstart Allowance. There is no evidence before me as to the source of funds the Husband has used to meet the mortgage repayments or other financial commitments on the [B] property. There is no evidence as to whether or not the Husband has acquired additional assets or liabilities since separation.
Since separation in March 2006, the Wife has met her own accommodation costs which she estimates at over $100,000, while the Husband has remained living in the [B] property. At the end of 2007, the Wife left Sydney to live in New Zealand. The Wife continued to work full time until November 2011, by which time she was earning approximately $100,000 per annum. Since moving to New Zealand, she has purchased a Golf Volkswagon motor vehicle, the value of which is included in the net asset pool of the parties. She continues to repay loans relating to the failed café business.
On the basis of these findings, I am satisfied that the Wife made the majority financial contribution to the non-superannuation assets of the marriage by way of initial contributions, during the period of cohabitation and post-separation. While the Husband is entitled to credit for his half share in the [B] property, held at March 2001, and for his contribution to the [B] property mortgage and expenses from the end of 2007, I am satisfied the Wife’s financial contributions, by way of her consistent employment during and after cohabitation, her commitment to meeting mortgage payments and household expenses without assistance from the Husband for many years, her contribution of the entirety of her pre-cohabitation funds to meet the parties’ business expenses, significantly outweigh those of the Husband.
Non-financial contributions. The Wife carried the majority responsibility for the day to day domestic tasks of the household during the period of cohabitation, without meaningful assistance from the Husband. As already noted, the Wife managed the books of the business and contributed her time to the running of the business outside her working hours, including using her time and skills to minimise business losses, without assistance from the Husband.
The orders proposed by the Wife do not affect either party’s earning capacity.
Assessment. On an assessment of each party’s contributions to non-superannuation assets during the period of cohabitation and since separation, I have determined that the Wife is entitled to 70% and the Husband 30% of the non-superannuation pool of assets, as far as they are known.
Superannuation. There is no evidence before me as to whether the Husband owned any superannuation at the date of commencement of cohabitation or as to whether the Husband accumulated any superannuation during cohabitation or after separation.
The Wife had been accumulating superannuation for 7 years prior to the commencement of cohabitation, although she adduces no evidence as to its value at that time. The Wife has accumulated superannuation paid by her employer during the 5 year period of the parties’ cohabitation. The Wife has continued to accumulate superannuation during the 6 years since the parties’ separation. She will not be in a position to access her entitlement until retirement in approximately 20 years time. On the evidence available, including the relatively short period of cohabitation, it is difficult to regard the Husband as having made an indirect contribution of any real worth to the Wife’s superannuation entitlements or by the Wife to any superannuation entitlements the Husband may have accumulated. I am satisfied that the Wife has made the only contribution to her own superannuation interests.
Assessment. On an assessment of each party’s contributions to superannuation assets, as far as they are known. I have determined that the Wife is entitled to 100% of the superannuation assets.
What matters referred to in sub-section 75(2) of the Act are relevant?
I have considered each of the relevant factors listed in section 75(2) of the Act.
The Wife is 43 and the Husband is 50 years of age.The Wife is in good health. The Wife is unable to provide any medical explanation for the Husband’s conduct during cohabitation or since separation. She cannot explain why the Husband has not participated in these proceedings and says she always remained hopeful that he would. She tells the Court that the Husband was “unstable” during their time together, though she is unaware of him ever being diagnosed with any medical condition. Although he drank alcohol to excess at times, his alcohol consumption was not a significant problem from her perspective. She says the Husband was volatile and “unable to cope” choosing to walk away from problems rather than addressing them. She gave the example of the Husband walking out of sessions when she arranged counselling after their separation. She has concluded that the Husband is manipulative. I make no findings in relation to the Husband’s health and make no adjustment under this factor.
Neither party has responsibility for a child.
Until recently, the Wife has been earning an income of up to $100,000 per annum, and is likely to re-enter the workforce before long. The Husband receives Newstart Allowance but may have other sources of income to enable him to meet the costs of the [B] property. There is no evidence before me as to the Husband’s capacity for gainful employment. I make no adjustment under this factor.
The Wife has not re-partnered and adduces no evidence of the Husband’s partnership status.
The Husband’s failure to engage in these proceedings has had negative consequences for the Wife. The parties have outstanding debts as a consequence of their failed business, and those debts must be repaid. I find that the Wife will be left to manage the problem without assistance from the Husband. I find that these proceedings have been necessitated by the Husband’s refusal to provide financial information and his refusal to participate at all in settlement negotiations. I find that the Wife has incurred legal costs which might otherwise have been avoided. I find the Husband has not disclosed his financial position. I will give the Wife an adjustment in her favour of 5% as a result of these findings.
There have been no other orders made affecting either party.
As the Wife will receive a further 5% adjustment by way of section 75(2) factors, she will receive 75% of the non-superannuation assets of the parties as far as they are known.
As already noted, in the absence of any evidence from the Husband, I find no basis for any adjustment in his favour in relation to superannuation assets. The Wife will receive 100% of the superannuation assets held in her name.
Is the result just and equitable?
Section 79(2) provides that:
The Court shall not make an Order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the Order.
The Court must be satisfied, on the evidence available, that the actual orders provide for a just and equitable distribution of the property of the parties.
The known net non-superannuation asset pool, excluding the [B] property, the mortgage loan and the joint debts which will be paid from the sale proceeds (joint [Q] credit union; service finance debt; and debt to [A]) has a value of $13,008, made up of the Wife’s bank proceeds, her car, items of property in her possession and debts in her sole name to her sister and the [Q] Credit Union. To receive his entitlement of 25% of the known net non-superannuation pool, the Husband must receive 25% of $13,008 which is $3,252.
When the [B] property has been sold, the net proceeds of sale, (after payment of the joint debts, and payment to the Husband of $3,252), will be divided such that the Wife will receive 75% and the Husband 25% of the balance remaining. In addition, the Wife will receive her superannuation entitlements. The Husband will receive any assets he has which have not been identified by the Wife, including any superannuation entitlement he may hold.
The Wife will be responsible for instructing solicitors and for arranging the sale. The conveyancing solicitors will be instructed to negotiate with [A], the previous landlords of the [omitted] business premises, so the parties’ outstanding debt to them can be discharged from the net sale proceeds of the [B] property.
I have decided to stay the orders for a period of 42 days to give the Husband a final opportunity to file any application to vary or set aside these orders within 28 days of service of a sealed copy of the Orders.
I am satisfied that the Orders set out at the beginning of these reasons are just and equitable.
I certify that the preceding fifty-three (53) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Sexton FM
Date: 4 April 2012
0
0
1