BANFORD & BANFORD

This matter concerned orders made by Judge Jarrett in proceedings between the Applicant and the Respondent. The dispute revolved around the division of property and the repayment of loans, specifically involving two properties, "Property W" and "Property M," and outstanding Westpac loans. The court was tasked with determining how these assets and liabilities should be managed and distributed between the parties.

The court was required to make orders concerning the sale of Property W, including the timeframe for obtaining finance approval to repay specific loans, the listing and sale of the property with a minimum sale price, and the distribution of the proceeds of sale. Additionally, the court had to establish a contingent plan for the sale of Property M if the Applicant failed to secure finance approval for the repayment of the loans within the stipulated period, including a minimum sale price and the distribution of its proceeds. The court also needed to address the retention of personalty by each party, ongoing mortgage payment obligations, and a lump sum payment from the Applicant to the Respondent, as well as costs.

The court's reasoning, as evidenced by the orders, focused on providing a structured and conditional framework for resolving the financial aspects of the dispute. It applied principles of property adjustment and debt allocation within the context of family law proceedings. The orders demonstrate a pragmatic approach, allowing the Applicant a period to obtain finance to discharge certain debts, with the sale of Property W as the primary mechanism for this repayment. If this failed, the sale of Property M was mandated. The court also specified the roles of real estate agents and conveyancers, and crucially, appointed the Registrar or Deputy Registrar to execute necessary documents if either party failed to do so, pursuant to section 106A of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The distribution of sale proceeds for both properties was carefully delineated, with specific provisions for scenarios where the sale price fell below or exceeded the set minimums, reflecting an attempt to achieve an equitable division.

The court ordered that the Applicant have 30 days to obtain finance approval to repay Westpac loans, with repayment within 45 days of approval. Property W was to be listed for sale within ten days, with a minimum sale price of $480,000 and completion no earlier than 75 days from the order date. Proceeds were to cover selling costs, then the Westpac loan, with the balance split 60% to the Respondent and 40% to the Applicant. If finance approval was not obtained, Property M was to be listed for sale within ten days, with a minimum price of $570,000. Proceeds were to cover selling costs, then the Westpac loans, with the balance split 60% to the Applicant and 40% to the Respondent. Each party was to retain their personalty. The Applicant was to continue mortgage payments on Property M until sold and 50% of payments on Property W until sold. The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $21,788.40 and costs of $8,119 within 30 days.