Bulleen & Bulleen

Case [2010] FamCA 187

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BULLEEN & BULLEEN [2010] FamCA 187
FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Long marriage – Contributions
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)
Aleksovski & Aleksovski (1996) FLC 92-705
Browne v Green (1999) FLC 92-873
Clauson (1995) 18 FamLR 693
Figgins v Figgins (2002) FLC 93-122
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) FLC 93-143
In the Marriage of Clausen (1995) 18 Fam LR 693
Mallett and Mallett (1984) 156 CLR 605
Mehmet and Mehmet No 2 (1987) FLC 91-801
Norbis and Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
Pierce v Pierce (1999) FLC 92-844
Rolfe and Rolfe (1979) FLC 90-629
SL and ELH [2005] FamCA 132
Tataryn v Tataryn (1994) 2 SCR 807
VAK and AK [2005] FamCA 803
Vigolo v Bostin (2005) HCA 11
Williams and Williams (1984) FLC 91-541
APPLICANT: Ms Bulleen
RESPONDENT: Mr Bulleen
FILE NUMBER: MLC 12431 of 2007
DATE DELIVERED: 12 March 2010
PLACE DELIVERED: Melbourne
PLACE HEARD: Melbourne
JUDGMENT OF: THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE CRONIN
HEARING DATE: 6, 11, 12, 13 & 16 November 2009

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr Geddes SC with Mr Dickson
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Gillian Coote Family Law
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr Kirkham QC with Mr Strum
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Gadens Lawyers

Orders

  1. That the husband retain and the wife relinquish any interest in, the property at Q Street.

  2. That the artwork contained at M Street and L Street and those listed as “unlisted location” in the document annexed to the wife’s “minute of orders sought” dated 12 November 2009 be divided on the following basis:

    (a)that all such paintings be grouped according to their artist;

    (b)unless the parties otherwise agree, the division be on the basis of the respective artists;

    (c)the parties pick their desired artists’ artwork on an alternating basis;

    (d)the wife be entitled to the first pick of one artist followed by the husband having the second pick; and

    (e)in the event that there is unwanted artwork upon the conclusion of such method of division, the remanents be sold and the proceeds be otherwise divided according to these orders.

  3. That notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) hereof, all property of the parties be divided as to 53.3 per cent to the husband and 46.7 per cent to the wife.

  4. That the ultimate determination of the distribution of assets in specie, sale of assets, the payment of taxes and the payment of cash by one party to the other (if any) be the subject of agreement between the parties adjusting for and taking into account:

    (a)     the partial distributions in paragraphs (1) and (2) above;

    (b)    the determination in paragraph (3) above,

    and failing agreement, that determination be made by the Court.

  5. That the matter be otherwise stood down to a date to be fixed for further orders.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Bulleen & Bulleen is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE

Continue reading Bulleen & Bulleen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bulleen & Bulleen [2010] FamCA 187
Case
[2010] FamCA 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bulleen & Bulleen, heard before Justice Cronin, the dispute concerned the division of property between a husband and wife. The court was tasked with determining the final distribution of various assets, including real estate and artwork, and establishing the respective entitlements of each party.

The central legal issues before the court were how to divide specific items of property, namely a property at Q Street and a collection of artwork located at M Street, L Street, and at unlisted locations, while also determining the overall percentage split of the parties' total property. The court also had to consider how these specific distributions would integrate with the overall division of assets and provide a mechanism for resolving any outstanding disagreements.

Justice Cronin ordered that the husband would retain the property at Q Street, and the wife would relinquish any interest in it. The artwork was to be divided by grouping it according to artist, with the parties then picking artwork on an alternating basis, with the wife having the first pick of an artist. Any remaining artwork after this process was to be sold, with the proceeds divided. Notwithstanding these specific distributions, the court ordered that the parties' total property be divided 53.3 per cent to the husband and 46.7 per cent to the wife. The ultimate distribution of assets in specie, sales, tax liabilities, and any cash payments were to be agreed upon by the parties, taking into account the specific distributions and the overall percentage split. If agreement could not be reached, the court would make a further determination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the husband retain and the wife relinquish any interest in, the property at Q Street.

2.

That the artwork contained at M Street and L Street and those listed as “unlisted location” in the document annexed to the wife’s “minute of orders sought” dated 12 November 2009 be divided on the following basis:

(a) that all such paintings be grouped according to their artist;

(b) unless the parties otherwise agree, the division be on the basis of the respective artists;

(c) the parties pick their desired artists’ artwork on an alternating basis;

(d) the wife be entitled to the first pick of one artist followed by the husband having the second pick; and

(e) in the event that there is unwanted artwork upon the conclusion of such method of division, the remanents be sold and the proceeds be otherwise divided according to these orders.

3.

That notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2) hereof, all property of the parties be divided as to 53.3 per cent to the husband and 46.7 per cent to the wife.

4.

That the ultimate determination of the distribution of assets in specie, sale of assets, the payment of taxes and the payment of cash by one party to the other (if any) be the subject of agreement between the parties adjusting for and taking into account:

(a) the partial distributions in paragraphs (1) and (2) above;

(b) the determination in paragraph (3) above,

and failing agreement, that determination be made by the Court.

5.

That the matter be otherwise stood down to a date to be fixed for further orders.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.