ARTINOS & ARTINOS

The Family Court of Australia heard a property dispute between Ms Artinos (the applicant wife) and Mr Artinos (the respondent husband). The litigation concerned the alteration of property interests, spouse maintenance, and child support departure orders. The wife sought orders for the sale of the former matrimonial home and two businesses, with significant portions of the proceeds to be paid to her, along with ongoing spousal maintenance and child support. The husband sought a lump sum payment to the wife and the transfer of the former matrimonial home to him, along with a different distribution of business sale proceeds.

The court was required to determine whether it was just and equitable to make orders for property division, and if so, to assess the parties' contributions and consider any necessary adjustments under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to address the wife's role as primary caregiver for the parties' four children over a period of twelve years out of the workforce, and the husband's financial contributions and dealings with various business and property assets. The court also considered applications for spouse maintenance and child support departure orders.

Stevenson J found that it was just and equitable to make orders for property division. The court assessed the parties' contributions as 55 per cent to the husband and 45 per cent to the wife. In applying section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court made an adjustment of 20 per cent in favour of the wife, taking into account her primary care of the children and her extended period out of the workforce. The wife's applications for spouse maintenance and child support departure orders were dismissed, as was the husband's application to vary interim spousal maintenance orders.

The court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, with 95 per cent of the net proceeds to be paid to the wife and the balance to the husband. The net proceeds from the sale of the two businesses were to be distributed as to 65 per cent to the wife and the balance to the husband. Each party was declared solely entitled to assets in their respective possession or control, other than those subject to the sale orders.