BALZANO & BALZANO
Case
•
[2014] FCCA 615
•3 April 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
BALZANO & BALZANO [2014] FCCA 615
[2014] FCCA 615
3 April 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Balzano & Balzano*, Judge Bender considered a dispute between a husband and wife, married for nearly 40 years and both retired with health issues. The central disagreement concerned the husband's [E] superannuation pension. The husband sought to have this entitlement treated separately and retained by him in its entirety, while the wife contended that the superannuation should be included in the asset pool for an equal division of all marital assets, including a splitting order for the superannuation.
The court was required to determine whether the husband's superannuation, which could be commuted to a known lump sum, should be included in the parties' total assets for division. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether, given the long duration of the marriage and the parties' ages, an equal division of all assets, including the husband's superannuation, was just and equitable.
Judge Bender reasoned that because the husband's superannuation could be converted into a definite lump sum, it was appropriate to include it within the overall asset pool. The court found that, in light of the parties' long marriage and their retired status with health concerns, an equal division of all assets was just and equitable. This equal division was to encompass the husband's superannuation valued at its known lump sum amount.
The court ordered that the matter be adjourned to allow the husband to propose a method for the wife to receive her equal share of the assets. Specifically, the husband was to advise the wife's solicitors in writing on how he proposed the wife receive her equal share, and in the event of non-compliance or disagreement, the court would make necessary orders. The court noted that the husband would need to pay the wife $263,789.50 to achieve an equal division, allowing him to retain the former matrimonial home and other assets, including his superannuation. This payment arrangement and the required superannuation split were to be finalised, with procedural fairness afforded to the superannuation fund.
The court was required to determine whether the husband's superannuation, which could be commuted to a known lump sum, should be included in the parties' total assets for division. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether, given the long duration of the marriage and the parties' ages, an equal division of all assets, including the husband's superannuation, was just and equitable.
Judge Bender reasoned that because the husband's superannuation could be converted into a definite lump sum, it was appropriate to include it within the overall asset pool. The court found that, in light of the parties' long marriage and their retired status with health concerns, an equal division of all assets was just and equitable. This equal division was to encompass the husband's superannuation valued at its known lump sum amount.
The court ordered that the matter be adjourned to allow the husband to propose a method for the wife to receive her equal share of the assets. Specifically, the husband was to advise the wife's solicitors in writing on how he proposed the wife receive her equal share, and in the event of non-compliance or disagreement, the court would make necessary orders. The court noted that the husband would need to pay the wife $263,789.50 to achieve an equal division, allowing him to retain the former matrimonial home and other assets, including his superannuation. This payment arrangement and the required superannuation split were to be finalised, with procedural fairness afforded to the superannuation fund.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
BALZANO & BALZANO [2014] FCCA 615
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52
Craig and Rowlands
[2013] FamCAFC 45
Williams & Williams
[2007] FamCA 313