Buch v Reeves No. DCCIV-02-736 - [2004] SADC 24

Buch v Reeves
[2004] SADC 024
Judge Muecke
Civil
Introduction

This action involves a claim and a counterclaim by which the plaintiff (‘Mr Buch’) and the defendant (‘Ms Reeves’) seek orders pursuant to s10 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1996 (‘the De Facto Relationships Act’).
Mr Buch and Ms Reeves lived together on a genuine domestic basis as husband and wife from July 1996 until 28 May 2001. That period is about four years and ten months.
After their de facto relationship ended both parties applied to this court for a division of property. In deciding whether to make an order for the division of property under Part 3 of the De Facto Relationships Act, and if so what the terms of any order should be, the court must consider the matters set out in s11(1)(a), (b) and (c) and may have regard to other relevant matters (s11(1)(d)).
The court must (as far as practicable) finally resolve questions about the division of property between de facto partners, Mr Buch and Ms Reeves, and avoid further proceedings between them (s12 of the De Facto Relationships Act).
At the trial of this action much of the evidence concerned a house and property at 30 Clifton Street, Millswood in the State of South Australia (‘Clifton Street’). In February 1997 Mr Buch and Ms Reeves purchased Clifton Street as tenants in common. They lived there together in a de facto relationship as defined by the De Facto Relationships Act until Mr Buch left on 28 May 2001. They lived there together for about four years and three months.
Mr Buch sought a monetary order which he submitted would reflect Ms Reeves’ cash contribution to the purchase of Clifton Street, the payment by her of all mortgage repayments on the borrowings taken to effect the purchase, and what he submitted was his ‘contribution’ to Clifton Street.
Mr Buch is a carpenter, and during the time that he was living with Ms Reeves at Clifton Street he performed certain work there at weekends and in the evenings. He demolished a shed at the rear of the property and partly erected a shed/workshop in its place. He performed certain renovations in the interior of the existing house. Finally, he commenced work on an extension to the rear of the house. That extension was only partly built when he left Clifton Street at the end of May 2001.
At trial a Quantity Surveyor was called on behalf of Mr Buch. His evidence was that he had costed the work he had been told that Mr Buch had done at Clifton Street. He costed labour and materials for that work together, but not separately. Following a site inspection on 5 September 2002 he assessed the works at $42,751.
At the start of the trial Mr Buch’s case was that as at July 2003 there existed equity in the Clifton Street property to the extent of $174,000. That equity was said to represent a value of $290,000 less the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Buch v Reeves No. DCCIV-02-736 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] SADC 24
Decision Date: 12 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Buch v Reeves involved a claim and a counterclaim by the plaintiff, Mr Buch, and the defendant, Ms Reeves, for an order pursuant to s10 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1996. Mr Buch and Ms Reeves had lived together on a genuine domestic basis as husband and wife for approximately four years and ten months. After the end of their relationship, both parties applied to the court for a division of property. The court was required to decide whether to make an order for the division of property under Part 3 of the De Facto Relationships Act and, if so, what the terms of any order should be. The court was to consider the matters set out in s11(1)(a), (b) and (c) and may have regard to other relevant matters (s11(1)(d)). The court was also to consider whether it could use the division of property to remedy any justified grievances that one party may have against the other, or to compensate one party for disappointed or unfulfilled expectations. The court found that Mr Buch had made no significant financial or non-financial contributions to the acquisition, conservation, or improvement of the house and property at Clifton Street. In contrast, Ms Reeves' contributions vastly exceeded that of Mr Buch. The court concluded that it would be just and equitable to make orders which would allow for Mr Buch to retain the real estate property in his name and for Ms Reeves to have the sole ownership of Clifton Street. The court proposed to order that Mr Buch transfer his interest in Clifton Street to Ms Reeves and that Ms Reeves indemnify Mr Buch as to any liabilities he has under the mortgage over that property.

Orders