Bender and Bender

The Family Court of Australia heard proceedings between Ms Bender (the applicant wife) and Mr Bender (the respondent husband). The parties, who had cohabited for 36 years and had three adult children, were unable to agree on the division of their property following their separation in September 2010. Their primary asset was a substantial piece of land, which constituted their former matrimonial home.

The court was required to determine a just and equitable alteration of the parties' property interests under the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth). Specifically, the legal issues included whether the wife should receive an adjustment of assets different from their current legal and equitable interests, and whether the substantial property should be subdivided. The wife sought to sell the property as one lot with proceeds divided 60/40 in her favour and sought $27,000 from the husband's superannuation. The husband sought an even division of net assets, proposed the subdivision of the property with each party receiving half, and alleged the wife had stolen a coin and stamp collection.

The court found that the wife's assertions regarding the husband's income and the transfer of funds to his new partner were not adequately supported by evidence. The court noted that the wife's estimate of the husband's income appeared to be a "careless overestimate" and that there was no evidence to demonstrate that funds transferred to an account held with Ms M originated from the parties' joint account. The court ultimately ordered the discharge of all existing orders and made new orders pursuant to s 79 of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth).

The court ordered that the C suburb property be listed for sale by private treaty, with a minimum listing price of $1,500,000. If contracts were not exchanged within three months, the property was to be listed for auction with a reserve price of $1,400,000. The proceeds of sale were to be distributed after payment of costs and discharge of the mortgage, with 54.49 percent allocated to the wife and 45.51 percent to the husband. Additionally, the court allocated a base amount of $28,000 to the wife from the husband's superannuation interest, creating an entitlement for the wife and a corresponding reduction in the husband's entitlement. The husband was to retain specific assets, including those in his name, motor vehicles, plant, equipment, tools, and the business G Pty Ltd, and was to indemnify the wife for any debts arising from these businesses. The wife was granted leave to attend the C suburb property to collect her personal property. Each party was otherwise entitled to assets in their respective names or possession, with mutual indemnities for associated debts. The Registrar of the Court was appointed to execute documents if either party refused or neglected to do so.