Carson and Carson
[2011] FMCAfam 1326
•6 December 2011
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CARSON & CARSON | [2011] FMCAfam 1326 |
| FAMILY LAW – Property – date of separation in dispute – income and earning capacity of the parties – relevant contributions – financial position of the husband – ongoing needs of the wife. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.75(2), 79 |
| Aleksovski and Aleksovski (1996) 20 Fam LR 894 Bremner and Bremner (1994) 18 Fam LR 407 Crawford and Crawford (1979) FLC 90-647 Hickey & Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143 Lee Steere and Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626 Money and Money (1994) Fam LR 814 White and White (1982) FLC 91-246 |
| Applicant: | MS CARSON |
| Respondent: | MR CARSON |
| File Number: | MLC 566 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Whelan FM |
| Hearing dates: | 29, 30 and 31 August 2011 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 31 August 2011 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 6 December 2011 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr MacFarlane |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nanscawen Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms Phelan |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Berry Family Law |
ORDERS
There be payment to the wife of the sum of $841,177.00 within 60 days of the date of this Order.
In the event the husband is unable to raise this amount within 60 days, the property at Property T is to be sold and the sum of $841,177.00 minus 50% of the costs associated with the sale, but excluding discharge of the mortgage, is to be paid to the wife.
The husband retain his motor vehicles.
Each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property (including choses-in-action) in the possession of such party as at the date of these orders.
Moneys standing to the credit of the parties in any joint bank account are to be divided equally.
Each party forgo any claims they may have to superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other and shall retain any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned in their own name.
Insurance policies remain the sole property of the beneficiary named therein.
Each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders.
Any joint tenancy of the parties in any real or personal estate is hereby expressly severed.
That each party do all such things and sign all documents necessary to give effect to these orders.
All extant applications otherwise be dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Carson & Carson is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 566 of 2010
| MS CARSON |
Applicant
And
| MR CARSON |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This matter concerns an application for property orders by the wife
MS CARSON (“the wife”). In her submissions to the Court the wife seeks that there be a 50/50 split of the assets of the parties which in essence consist of the former matrimonial home and a half interest in two other properties.
The husband MR CARSON (“the husband”), in his final submissions to the Court, sought that the property be divided so as to give him 70% of the assets and the wife 30%.
Background
The husband was born [in] 1960 and is now 51 years of age. The wife was born [in] 1963 and is 48 years of age. The parties married in 1989. At that time, the husband was living with his mother in a property owned by her in Property H (“the Property H property”). Some work was done on the house to provide for two kitchens and two bathrooms and the parties lived there until April 1994. During this time, the two children of the marriage [X] born [in] 1990 (“the daughter”) and [Y] born [in] 1992 (“the son”) were born. In September 1992, the husband’s mother entered a nursing home on a permanent basis and remained there until her death in 1998.
At the time of the marriage both parties were employed. The wife continued working until the birth of the daughter when she took 12 months maternity leave and returned to work until the birth of the son. She then remained at home with the children until 1996.
In 1992, the parties purchased a property in Property E (“the Property E property”). The purchase price and source of the funds to purchase the property is a matter of dispute between the parties. Shortly after, the husband was made redundant and the money from his redundancy – $33,000.00 – was used to support the family while renovations were being done by him on the Property E property. The parties continued to live rent-free in the Property H property until they moved to the Property E property in April 1994.
In late 1994, a property owned by the husband’s mother in Property R (“the Property R property”) was sold by the husband and his brother for $205,000.00 and after discharge of the mortgage and other expenses, realised $123,000.00. This was used by the husband and his brother in the purchase of a property at Property D (“the Property D property”) in 1995. Title in that property is held by the parties to these proceedings, the husband’s brother and the brother’s wife as tenants-in-common. It is also subject to a mortgage. Both the Property H property (since 1994) and the Property D property (since 1996) have been rented and the proceeds from the rental used to meet the mortgage on the Property D property and the rates and maintenance on both properties. Any excess from the rental on the Property H property has been paid to the husband and his brother in equal shares.
In 1997, the wife had a serious car accident which resulted in two operations on her shoulder and an abortion. She did not re-enter the workforce. The husband has been essentially self-employed or doing contract work since 1994.
In September 2001, the parties purchased the property at Property T (“the Property T property”) for $479,000.00. The property was initially rented out. The title to the Property T property is in the husband’s name only although the mortgage is in both parties’ names. At the end of 2006, the parties decided to sell the Property E property, and for a time after its sale stayed with the wife’s sister in [K] while the husband carried out renovations on the Property T property.
The Property E property sold for $648,000.00. At the time it was subject to a mortgage of $300,000.00. The money from the sale was used to pay off the $450,000.00 borrowed to purchase the Property T property with the residual used to pay off some of the equity loan (on the Property E property) which was then transferred to the Property T property.
The issues
The issues in this matter concern the date of the separation – which the husband says was in 1998 and the wife says was in May 2008; the contributions both direct and indirect to the properties including the assets inherited by the husband from his mother and the renovation work done by the husband on the properties; the financial position of the husband; and the ongoing needs of the wife.
There is no doubt that the wife suffers from a debilitating mental condition which unfortunately was not diagnosed for many years. She freely admits that she has used alcohol to self-medicate.
She suffered from about 1996 from medical conditions including a dermoid cyst and depression and later a motor vehicle accident which caused chronic damage to her shoulder. As a result of her condition she could become aggressive and abusive and suffer from mood swings and impulsive behaviour.
There is also no doubt that the wife’s mental condition affected the whole of the family and the behavioural manifestations of her condition could make her difficult to live with.
The date of separation
The wife began to experience health problems from about 1996. In addition to her physical problems she was also drinking to excess. The parties began to experience difficulties in the marriage which culminated in a separation under the same roof in 1998. The wife says that the husband refused to leave the house. He says that due to her medical problems he agreed she could stay. The wife went on a single mother’s pension.
The husband in affidavit evidence says that the parties never lived as husband and wife after that date (July 1998). His oral evidence however contradicts this. Where his oral evidence conflicts with that of the wife, I accept her evidence. This is particularly because I considered her to have been open in her answers, to have made admissions against her own interests and I accept that her occasional vagueness about when some things occurred is understandable in light of her medical condition.
Further, during the time the husband says that they were separated, the parties purchased property with a joint mortgage and went on a trip to America with their children as a family. They also lived together at the wife’s sister’s house for a period of some two months.
The husband makes general statements about the wife coming and going from the house at Property E and later Property T. The wife refers to specific periods when she left the marital home and later reconciled with the husband between 1998 and May 2008. While she was not clear on specific dates she refers to an initial reconciliation in 1999 when they resumed sleeping together and also jointly purchased some shares.
The wife also refers to a period of about six weeks when she put herself into the Salvation Army’s drug and alcohol rehabilitation program and spent time with the children in a women’s refuge. She further states that in late 2002 she lived in [suburb omitted] in accommodation arranged by the Hanover Centre and was able to obtain employment in [omitted]. She later reconciled with the husband in 2003.
The wife says she moved out again in 2006 when she discovered that the Property T property was in the husband’s sole name. She stayed for a time in a house belonging to her sister in [K]. The parties later reconciled and lived together at her sister’s place before moving into the Property T property in 2007. The parties then borrowed $90,000.00 to furnish the house and enable the husband not to work while he did the renovations.
During the course of the marriage the husband took out several applications for intervention orders against the wife in March 2003, August 2004, April 2005 and October 2007. With the exception of one of these, which was dismissed, the husband withdrew each of them. On 1 May 2008, an intervention order was made against the wife for a period of 18 months. The wife says that on previous occasions they had reconciled but on this occasion they separated and have not reconciled since.
I accept that the date of separation was May 2008.
Relevant legal principles
Section 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) sets out the Court’s powers in determining applications for a property settlement.
Section 79(1)(a) provides:
(1) In property settlement proceedings, the court may make such order as it considers appropriate:
(a) in the case of proceedings with respect to the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them--altering the interests of the parties to the marriage in the property;
Section 79(2) provides:
(2) The court shall not make an order under this section unless it is satisfied that, in all the circumstances, it is just and equitable to make the order.
Section 79(4) of the Act sets out the matters which the Court must take into account:
(4) In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section in property settlement proceedings, the court shall take into account:
(a) the financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last mentioned property, whether or not that last mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and
(b) the contribution (other than a financial contribution) made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage to the acquisition, conservation or improvement of any of the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them, or otherwise in relation to any of that last mentioned property, whether or not that last mentioned property has, since the making of the contribution, ceased to be the property of the parties to the marriage or either of them; and
(c) the contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family constituted by the parties to the marriage and any children of the marriage, including any contribution made in the capacity of homemaker or parent; and
(d) the effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party to the marriage; and
(e) the matters referred to in subsection 75(2) so far as they are relevant; and
(f) any other order made under this Act affecting a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage; and
(g) any child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 that a party to the marriage has provided, is to provide, or might be liable to provide in the future, for a child of the marriage.
In Hickey & Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener)[1] the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia set out the preferred approach to be adopted by the Courts in property matters involving a four-step approach which includes:
(a)Identifying the property, liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the date of the hearing;
(b)Identifying and assessing the contributions of the parties within the meaning of ss.79(4)(a), (b) and (c); and
(c)Identifying and assessing the relevant matters in ss.79(4)(d), (e), (f) and (g) and s.75(2).
(d)Considering the effects of those findings in order to resolve what order is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case.
[1] Hickey & Hickey and Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia (Intervener) (2003) FLC 93-143.
I will now consider these matters.
The asset pool
The assets of the parties consist of the following:
Asset
$
Property T
$1,275,000.00
Property D (50%)
$400,000.00
Property H (50%)
$487,500.00
Husband’s [vehicle]
$12,000.00
Husband’s superannuation
$10,054.00
TOTAL
$2,184,554.00
The husband also has a 1998 Toyota van which he uses for his business, [B]. To both the van and the business he ascribes a nominal value. The parties have agreed on a division of the chattels.
The liabilities of the parties consist of:
Liability
$
Mortgage on the Property T property
$450,000.00
Mortgage on the Property D property (50%)
$38,000.00
Wife’s credit card debts
$14,200.00
TOTAL
$502,200.00
The husband also has some debts to business creditors but as the assets of the business have not been taken into account, I have not included these in the liabilities.
The net asset pool is therefore $1,682,354.00.
Contributions
The wife says that at the time of the marriage she owned a [vehicle] valued at $10,500.00, furniture and household items. The husband says he had a motor vehicle and savings of about $55,000.00 from the sale of a house he owned.
From the time of the marriage until April 1994 the parties lived rent-free in the husband’s mother’s house. The husband maintains his mother was in good health until about 1991 when she began to deteriorate and was placed in a nursing home in September 1992. She was however able to look after herself and the Council provided home help once a week. The wife says that from the time of the marriage until her pregnancy with the son (who was born in 1992) she looked after the husband’s mother assisting her with meals, cleaning and personal hygiene. They had Meals-on-Wheels come once a week.
In 1992, the parties purchased a house in Property E. The husband says that the purchase price was $128,000.00 and was bought using the parties’ savings and money from the sale of a motor vehicle (which he had bought while they were on honeymoon in the USA) for $38,000.00. The wife says that the purchase price was $145,000.00 and that the husband contributed $25,000.00 from the sale of the motor vehicle and she contributed $24,000.00 from money given to her by her mother.
The parties undertook renovations on the Property E property and lived off the husband’s redundancy package while he undertook the work. The wife says she also withdrew $4,000.00 from her superannuation for family living expenses. They moved into the property in April 1994. The husband says that the profit from the sale of the Property R property was used to purchase the Property D property. The wife agrees with this but says that the parties, together with the husband’s brother and his wife, borrowed an additional $90,000.00 to effect the purchase.
The wife says that in 1999 the parties borrowed $50,000.00 to purchase shares. The husband denies the money was borrowed. They later sold these shares in 2002 to finance a family holiday to America.
In September 2001, the parties purchased the Property T property for $479,000.00. The property was rented out until 2007 when they moved there following the sale of the Property E property. The wife says that she did not find out that the property was in the husband’s name only until 2006. The wife also says that the husband purchased a new car with money from the equity loan on the Property E property.
In 2007, the husband decided to take 12 months off work to complete the renovations on the Property T property. The parties borrowed an additional $90,000.00 for this purpose. The wife agrees that she also took $16,000.00 from the mortgage equity account but says that this was for general living expenses and not to pay gambling debts as alleged by the husband.
After separation in 2008, the wife drew down $10,000.00 from her superannuation to repay a credit card debt which she says was accrued in purchasing blinds, lights, linen and furniture for the Property T property. Her taxation return for 2008 – $3,713.97 – was sent to the Property T property. She says that the husband took both this money and her $900.00 Stimulus Package payment by depositing it in the joint mortgage account and then transferring it to his own account. Since separation the wife’s superannuation has been reduced to nil.
The husband contends that he made significant contributions to all of the properties owned by the parties through his own labour and skill in renovating both the Property E and the Property T properties. The wife says she painted the Property D property and that much of the renovation work on the Property T property was done by workmen they employed.
The wife says that she cared for the children and the husband’s mother in the early period of the marriage and even when not living with the husband she returned to the family home to get the children ready for school. The wife says that on occasions when she left the family home, the husband asked for her to return because he could not look after the children by himself.
The husband says that because of the wife’s drinking and erratic behaviour, he was the principal carer for the children after 1998. The husband agreed that up until 1994 the wife had looked after the children and the home very well but that after that her drinking increased and he and the wife’s mother took over more of their care. The wife’s mother looked after the children on week days while the wife was recovering from her motor vehicle accident. The husband concedes that both he and the wife looked after the children after 1998, at times when she was living in the marital home.
The contentions of the husband
The husband contends that 52% of the value of the assets can be directly attributed to the properties inherited by him from his mother. Further, the period of time during which the parties lived rent-free in his mother’s home enabled them to purchase the property at Property E. The property in Property D was purchased through the sale of the Property R property and the mortgage and upkeep on that property has been serviced by the rent on it and the Property H property.
The purchase of the Property T property was eventually financed by the sale of the Property E property but the initial mortgage depended on using the Property D property as collateral. The husband has contributed 52% being the Property H and Property D properties to which the wife made no financial contribution and half of the value of the Property T property making his financial contribution 75% in all.
The husband also submits that he made significant non-financial contributions in the renovation of both the Property E and Property T properties. There is no evidence of the wife making any non-financial contribution.
Until 1994 the husband concedes that the wife cared well for the children. He disputes the extent to which she provided care for his mother. By 1998 however he was doing the lion’s share of looking after the children. While the wife moved in and out of the marital home, he paid the mortgage and looked after the children. He submits that he did a greater percentage of care for the welfare of the family at the level of 60/40 in his favour.
The contentions of the wife
The wife submits that there was a marriage of 19 years and a relationship of 20 years. Between 1989 and 1992, the wife made a substantial contribution to the care of the husband’s mother. This was a very significant non-financial contribution to the welfare of the family and an indirect contribution to the Property H property. The financial contributions by the husband are significant and far outweigh the wife’s but there was a contribution of $24,000.00 from her mother which went towards the purchase of the Property E property.
In terms of initial contributions, it is clear that the husband contributed one half of the Property H property and one half of the Property R property. It is trite that after a 19-year marriage, the husband ought to get a dollar-for-dollar return of those contributions. It is wrong to say that the non-financial contributions to the Property E and Property T properties should be attributed to the husband. During the time he was doing those renovations, he was not working and in the case of the Property T property at least, drew on the mortgage to support himself and the family while he was working on the house.
The wife asserts in relation to her role as a homemaker and parent that the husband could not cope with the children and that when she did move out he asked her to come back to look after the children. It was her evidence that she was the one primarily responsible for the children when she was at home.
The wife submits that taking all of those matters into consideration the husband’s contribution should be assessed at 60-65% and the wife’s at 35-40%.
Section 75(2) factors
The husband is 51 years of age and in good health. He operates a business, [B], of which he is the sole employee. The work is largely sub-contract work doing [omitted].
The husband provided tax returns for the financial years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009. He did not provide his return for 2009-2010 but stated that his taxable income for that year was $33,000.00. The financial statement submitted by him in May 2010 shows an average weekly income of $1,280.00 or $66,560.00 and total weekly expenditure of $1,816.00 per week or $94,432.00. His expenses included $577.00 per week being payments on the Property T property mortgage and $85.00 per week being payments on the Property D property mortgage. The mortgage payments on Property T alone came to $30,000.00 per annum.
In the twelve months prior to the hearing the husband took two overseas trips of approximately one month each, once to Bangkok and Turkey and once to Italy and Turkey.
The wife submits that the husband has not been frank in the financial information he provided to the Court. He could not sustain the outgoings he claims and fund two overseas trips on a taxable income of only $33,000.00 per annum. The wife submits that the husband’s income is more likely to be $100,000.00 per annum based on his expenses.
The husband is currently living in the former matrimonial home and, although the two children are also living there, they are both adults.
The husband accepts that on the medical evidence the wife’s earning capacity is close to nil. She is currently living in a room in a boarding house and is dependent on social security benefits.
The wife is 48 years of age and is likely to spend the rest of her life on a disability benefit. Because of her mental illness, even if she is physically able to work, she is unlikely to be able to sustain employment. She has no superannuation or other financial resources.
The husband accepts that the wife should be given a loading of 10% for s.75(2) factors. The wife submits that the loading should be in the range of 15-20%.
Conclusions
I am satisfied that the financial contributions by the husband, primarily as a result of the inheritances from his mother, should be afforded appropriate weight.
At the time of the marriage he had savings of about $55,000.00 which appear to have primarily been spent on a two-month honeymoon in America and the purchase of a motor vehicle there which, he says, was later sold for $38,000.00. (The wife says it was sold for $25,000.00). This amount, plus a sum of $24,000.00 from the wife’s mother and the combined savings made by living rent-free with his mother from 1989 were used in the purchase of the first home. I accept however that while the parties lived rent-free in the Property H property until 1994, between 1989 and 1992 the wife made a significant contribution to the care of the husband’s mother which saved the family the expense of accommodating her in a nursing home until late 1992.
The husband contributed to the family’s assets from his inheritance of half of the Property H property and the half of the Property R property which was sold and formed the basis for the purchase of the half-share in the Property D property. The wife made no financial contribution to the acquisition of the Property D property although she did indirectly contribute to the Property H property by her care of her mother-in-law and rental from that property was used in paying the mortgage and outgoings on the Property D property.
The husband also contributed his labour in the renovation of both the Property E property and the Property T property. He was however able to do this by not engaging in paid employment for periods of time. While in the first case the family was able to live on his redundancy payment, in the second case the labour contribution was substantially offset by the extension on the mortgage which was used both to pay for materials and contractors and to support the family.
We are considering, in this case, a relationship of almost twenty years. As Nicholson CJ said in Bremner and Bremner (1994) 18 Fam LR 407, “when one considers cases of this sort, it should be remembered that they are not decided upon a pure mathematical basis”.[2]
[2] (1994) 18 Fam LR 407 at 412.
The principles generally applicable were enunciated by Fogarty J in Money & Money (1994)17 Fam LR 814. His Honour said:
In an appropriate case, in my view, an initial substantial contribution by one party may be "eroded" to a greater or lesser extent by the later contributions of the other party even though those later contributions do not necessarily at any particular point outstrip those of the other party. I feel, if I may say so with respect, that his Honour's formulation to the contrary is unrealistic and does not correspond with common experience in the Court in many of these cases.
I think it is legitimate for me to say, as I was a member of the Full Court in Le Steere (1985) FLC 91-626, that his Honour has read too much into the passage to which he refers and that the term "off-setting contribution" does not necessarily mean "greater contribution". It simply reflects the circumstance that the respective contributions of the parties over a long period of marriage may "offset" the significance which might otherwise be attached to a greater initial contribution by one party. This is, in my view, made clear by the Full Court in White (1982) FLC 91-246 where that Court pointed out that the principle in Crawford (1979) FLC 90-647 is that the original contribution should not be carried forward as a mathematical proportion; ultimately, when it comes to the trial such a contribution is one of a number of factors to be considered. The longer the marriage the more likely it is that there will be later factors of significance, and in the ultimate the exercise is to weigh the original contribution with all other, later, factors and those later factors, whether equal or not, may in the circumstances of the individual case reduce the significance of the original contribution.[3]
[3] Money and Money (1994) 17 Fam LR 814 at 816.
The same principle applies in considering the weight which should be attached to financial contributions made at an early stage of the marriage such as occurred in this case. In Aleksovski and Aleksovski (1996) 20 Fam LR 894, Baker and Rowlands JJ discussed the weight to be given to contributions at different stages of the marriage. They concluded:
Although there may be a distinction between a contribution made by a party at the commencement of a marriage and a contribution such as an inheritance or damages award which is made in the early years of a marriage, nevertheless the passage of time is the element which reduces the significance of initial or early contributions. For this reason it is clear that the character and significance of the contribution changes as the period of cohabitation lengthens, with initial or early contributions gradually diminishing with the passage of time.[4]
[4] (1996) 20 Fam LR 894 at 903.
In terms of contributions to the welfare of the family, it is clear that in the early period of the marriage the wife was the primary homemaker and caregiver. Following her car accident in 1997, the husband did take on more of those responsibilities although I note that when she was recovering from her injuries it was her mother who looked after the children during the week.
I also accept that on the first occasion when the wife sought assistance with her mental health problems she took the children with her. I further accept that during periods of time after 1998 when she was in the house she did look after the children and undertake household tasks. There were also clearly times when because of her illness or alcohol consumption she was unable to do so.
The husband contends that his financial contribution should be assessed at 75% and his contribution to the welfare of the family at 55%. In my view, the contributions of the parties as parents and homemakers should be assessed as equal. The financial contribution of the husband should be given some greater weight and I accept that a 65%/35% assessment in his favour is appropriate.
In terms of the s.75(2) factors, these weigh heavily in favour of the wife. She is currently living on social security benefits amounting to $288.65 per week and paying rent for a room in a boarding house of $150.00 per week. The medical evidence indicates that she is most unlikely to ever be able to obtain stable employment even on a part-time basis and she will need to be on medication for the rest of her life.
The husband, in contrast, is currently living in the former matrimonial home which is valued at $1,275,000.00. He runs a business, the assets of which are unknown but which I accept is primarily a vehicle for his own employment. He has some rental income from the Property H property and is able to service a mortgage on the Property T property of $577.00 per week and on the Property D property of $85.00 per week. In the last year he has been able to take two overseas trips of four weeks each. The Court did not have his 2010 tax return but it would appear that the income he stated to the Court substantially underestimates the financial resources at his disposal based on the outgoings given. While the children of the marriage are living with him, they are both adults.
I am satisfied that an adjustment of 15% for s.75(2) factors in the wife’s favour is appropriate. On that basis, a division of the assets on a 50/50 basis in my view represents a just and equitable outcome.
On the basis that the husband retains his motor vehicles and superannuation, this can be achieved by payment to the wife of the sum of $841,177.00. If the husband is unable to raise this amount within 60 days by other means, the Property T property is to be sold and the sum of $841,177.00 minus 50% of the costs associated with the sale, but excluding discharge of the mortgage, is to be paid to the wife.
I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Whelan FM
Date:6 December 2011
0
0
1