Almer and STIERZNOW-ALMEr

[2009] FamCA 1086

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ALMER & STIERZNOW-ALMER [2009] FamCA 1086

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – urgent interim property – urgent need for transportation

APPLICANT: Mr Almer

RESPONDENT: Ms Stierznow-Almer

FILE NUMBER: PAC 777 of 2009

DATE DELIVERED: 10 November 2009

PLACE DELIVERED: Sydney

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

JUDGMENT OF: Cohen J

HEARING DATE: 10 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

APPLICANT IN PERSON: Mr Almer

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Kenny

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Navado Lawyers & Solicitors

Orders

1. That within on (1) month the Husband cause his Company to sell the motor vehicle, registration number ….

2. That within one (1) month of the sale of the motor vehicle referred to in Order 4 half proceeds of such sale are to be caused to be paid by the Husband to the Wife.

3. That the Husband may in the alternative to Order 4 pay the Wife $9,000 being equal to half of the value of the motor vehicle referred to in Order 4.

Notation:

(A)That the sale and payment of the proceeds of sale of the motor vehicle referred to in Order 4 is for the purpose of the Wife purchasing a motor vehicle.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Almer & Stierznow-Almer is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA  

FILE NUMBER: PAC 777 of 2009

MR ALMER

Applicant

And

MS STIERZNOW-ALMEr

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. In this matter, the husband has asked for many orders and has another matter on tomorrow.  The Court would need considerable time to deal with the matter and there is a much more urgent matter before it where an applicant has come from overseas specifically to have the matter heard, and it will take most of today.  I have been informed by Mr Kenny for the wife that she has no car and needs one.  I accept that she needs a car.  The husband has a car.  It is actually owned by his company, but he controls the company.  In those circumstances, it is appropriate that the wife have a car.  She has an urgent need for it.  I have only time today to deal with the matter on an urgent basis; that is, summarily.  When I say the matter, I mean the matter limited to the wife’s urgent need for a motorcar.

2. I find that she has established her case for such a vehicle and that because the husband has the use of a vehicle, there is absolutely no reason why he should not sell that vehicle, which is a BMW, and purchase for himself or for his own use through the company, a vehicle with half the proceeds of sale and provide the wife with the other half of the proceeds of sale so she can purchase a car.  In the event that he pays the wife $9000, which is what he says is half the value of the BMW that he drives, he should be relieved from the requirement to sell the car. I shall make orders accordingly. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cohen.

Associate: 

Date:  18 November 2009