COOMBS & COOMBS
[2018] FCCA 2671
•20 September 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| COOMBS & COOMBS | [2018] FCCA 2671 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property – long marriage – assessment of contributions – adjustment of parties’ interests – justice and equity |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.75, 79 |
| Cases cited: Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19 |
| Applicant: | MS COOMBS |
| Respondent: | MR COOMBS |
| File Number: | PAC 5002 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Obradovic |
| Hearing date: | 20 – 21 November 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 24 November 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 20 September 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Gardiner |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Collins & Thompson |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Givney |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Coleman Greig Lawyers |
ORDERS
Within 60 days of the date of these Orders the husband shall pay to the wife the sum of $340,850.
Contemporaneously with Order 1, the parties shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be required to transfer to the husband all of the wife’s right, title and interest in the real property situated at and known as Property A, having Certificate of Title Folio Identifier (“home”).
The wife is to vacate the home within 7 days after compliance with Orders 1 and 2 above.
The parties shall take all necessary steps and execute all necessary documents to cause the property situated at Property B having Certificate of Title Folio Identifier (“Property B property”) to be sold by private treaty at the earliest possible date at a price to be agreed on between the parties and failing agreement to be determined by the proper officer of the Real Estate Institute or their nominee and that the proceeds of sale be disbursed as follows:
(a)Payment of agent’s commissions and advertising expenses and legal expenses of the sale;
(b)The net balance to the wife.
Pursuant to section 90MT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 a base amount of $101,812 be allocated to the wife out of the husband’s interest in the Mr Coombs Self-Managed Superannuation Fund (“the Fund”).
In accordance with section 90MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975:
(a)The wife (or the wife’s administrators, executors, beneficiaries, heirs or assigns), is entitled to be paid, using the base amount allocated in Order 5, the amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law Act (Superannuation) Regulations 2001;
(b)The entitlement of the husband is correspondingly reduced by force of this order.
The Trustee of the Fund shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to:
(a)Calculate, in accordance with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975 the entitlement awarded to the wife;
(b)Pay the entitlement whenever the Trustee makes a splittable payment from the husband’s interest in the Fund;
(c)That this order have effect from the operative time and the operative time is on the date this Order is made; and
(d)After service of the payment split notice, in accordance with the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 the husband shall do all such things and sign all such documents as may be necessary, including but not limited to exercising the wife’s request in accordance with the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994.
Upon compliance by the Trustee of Orders 5 - 7 inclusive, the wife shall within 30 days cause her member entitlement in the Fund to be rolled over into a superannuation fund of her choice.
Upon compliance by the Trustee of the Fund of Orders 5 – 8 inclusive the wife shall execute all Deeds and instruments necessary to:
(a)Transfer to the husband her entire shareholdings in Coombs Pty Ltd (“the said company”); and
(b)Resign as a director of the said company.
Forthwith, the husband shall indemnify the wife and keep her indemnified in respect of any claims, actions, suits or demand arising from or in connection with her having been at any time a director, shareholder or other office holder or employee of the said company.
The wife is solely entitled to:
(a)The jewellery;
(b)The painting;
(c)Motor Vehicle 1; and
(d)Two prints.
The husband is solely entitled to:
(a)The two watercolour paintings from the (country omitted);
(b)The Motor Vehicle 2;
(c)The stamp collection;
(d)The coin collection; and
(e)The comic collection.
The parties shall retain the contents of the separate bank accounts.
The parties be solely responsible for their respective credit card liabilities.
Both parties shall do all acts and things and sign all documents necessary to give effect to these Orders.
If either party refuses or neglects to sign, within 14 days of a written request to do so, any documents necessary to effect the terms of Orders, a Registrar or such other officer of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is hereby appointed pursuant to the provisions of section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 to execute such documents on behalf of such party.
Remove all outstanding issues from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Coombs & Coombs is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PARRAMATTA |
PAC 5002 of 2015
| MS COOMBS |
Applicant
And
| MR COOMBS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These are proceedings for property adjustment orders pursuant to s.79 of the Family Law Act 1975.
The parties were married for over 25 years. There are two children of the parties’ marriage, who were both adults at time of hearing. The husband’s children from an earlier marriage played a significant part of the parties’ lives together.
At the conclusion of the proceedings the wife was 60 years old and the husband was 68 years old. Their assets, accumulated over the many years they lived together, and prior to that, stood at approximately $4,500,000.
The Relevant Legal Principles
The overall approach to the determination of an application for property adjustment orders pursuant to s.79 Family Law Act1975 (Cth) was set out by the High Court in Stanford v Stanford,[1]where their Honours stated:
[1] [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 247 CLR 108
[37] … first, it is necessary to begin consideration of whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order by identifying, according to ordinary common law and equitable principles, the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property… the question posed by s 79(2) is thus whether, having regard to those existing interests, the court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order.
…
[40]… whether making a property settlement order is ‘just and equitable’ is not to be answered by beginning from the assumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties divided between them or has the right to an interest in marital property which is fixed by reference to the various matters (including financial and other contributions) set out in s 79(4). The power to make a property settlement order must be exercised “in accordance with legal principles, including the principles which the Act itself lays down”. To conclude that making an order is “just and equitable” only because of and by reference to various matters in s 79(4), without a separate consideration of s 79(2), would be to conflate the statutory requirements and ignore the principles laid down by the Act.
[41] Adherence to these fundamental propositions in exercising the power in s 79 gives due recognition to “the need to preserve and protect the institution of marriage” identified in s 43(1)(a) as a principle to be applied by courts in exercising jurisdiction under the Act…
[42] In many cases where an application is made for a property settlement order, the just and equitable requirement is readily satisfied by observing that, as the result of a choice made by one or both of the parties, the husband and wife are no longer living in a marital relationship. It will be just and equitable to make a property settlement order in such a case because there is not and will not thereafter be the common use of property by the husband and wife. No less importantly, the express and implicit assumptions that underpinned the existing property arrangements have been brought to an end by the voluntary severance of the mutuality of the marital relationship. That is, any express or implicit assumption that the parties may have made to the effect that existing arrangements of marital property interests were sufficient or appropriate during the continuance of their marital relationship is brought to an end with the ending of the marital relationship. And the assumption that any adjustment to those interests could be effected consensually as needed or desired is also brought to an end. Hence it will be just and equitable that the court make a property settlement order…
Such approach was subsequently considered by the Full Court of the Family Court in Bevan & Bevan[2], Chapman & Chapman[3] and Scott & Danton[4].
[2] [2014] FamCAFC 19
[3] [2014] FamCAFC 91
[4] [2014] FamCAFC 203
In many matters which come before this Court, the requirement of whether it is just and equitable to make any orders is readily satisfied by the fact of the parties’ separation; as there is not and will not thereafter be the joint use of property by the parties. It is so in these proceedings.
Once the issue of whether it is just and equitable to make any order is resolved, the Court is to then consider the contributions made by the parties as defined in s.79(4)(a) to (c), the matters set out in s.79(4)(d) to (g) and in particular the subjective considerations as to the parties by having regard to the provisions of s.75(2) in so far as they are relevant.
The Court is then to consider the justice and equity of the actual orders to be made, in the context of the Court’s obligations to make appropriate orders as provided for in s.79(1) of the Act.[5]
[5] see generally Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877; Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120
The just and equitable requirement is “one permeating the entire process”[6].
Findings of Fact
[6] Bevan supra at [86]
The husband
The husband was born on 1949 in the (country omitted).
As a 15 year old, the husband inherited a stamp collection from his father and a coin collection from his grandfather. In his twenties, the husband developed an interest in collecting comic books, an interest which he developed over the next twenty years, during which period he bought and sold comic books.
In 1976, the husband commenced (employment omitted), and has remained in (employment omitted) to this day.
During the 1980’s the husband travelled on business to the (country omitted) and (country omitted). Through those travels as well as his business and the connections he consequently and subsequently developed, he acquired a certain acumen for investing in property. He also obtained knowledge of gold trading and currency markets.
At the start of the parties’ relationship, the husband had the following assets:
a)Interest in business;
b)Motor vehicle;
c)Savings in (country omitted);
d)Gold nominated account with Bank 1;
e)Savings and investment accounts in Australia;
f)Property C (subject to mortgage);
g)Land at Property D owned by Coombs Pty Ltd of which the husband was the sole shareholder and director;
h)Property E;
i)Stocks and shares in Australian Stock Exchange[7] listed companies and gold companies;
j)Shareholding in Company A Pty Ltd which owned Property F;
k)Gold;
l)Comic book collection;
m)Stamp collection;
n)Coin collection; and
o)Superannuation entitlements.
[7] Held in the name of Coombs Pty Ltd
The wife
The wife was born on 1957. She is a qualified (occupation omitted), and at the commencement of the parties’ relationship she was employed on a full-time basis.
At the start of the parties’ relationship, the wife had the following assets:
a)Property at Property G (subject to a loan);
b)Savings;
c)Motor vehicle; and
d)Superannuation entitlements.
The parties’ relationship
The parties commenced living together in 1990. The wife says this was in 1990, while the husband says it was in (omitted). Nothing turns on this difference of five months, given the length of the parties’ relationship and the parties’ overall contributions.
In or around February and March 1991, Company A Pty Ltd subdivided and sold the land it owned at Property F. Consequently, the husband received approximately $24,000 from the sale.
In 1991, the parties purchased a vacant block of land at Property A where they intended to build a home together. The purchase price was $206,000. The stamp duty and costs of purchase were approximately $6,000. The husband paid $87,000 from his savings. At around this time, the wife sold her property at Property G, and she contributed $125,000 towards the purchase of Property A. The block of land was unencumbered.
In 1991, the parties signed a contract with a builder to build a home on the land at Property A. The husband paid the deposit and then made progress payments of approximately $83,700 during the course of construction. In 1991, the husband and wife borrowed $200,000 for the build (subsequently refinanced in 1993[8]), and the monthly repayments for the loan were met out of the parties’ joint account. The house was completed in 1992.
[8] At that stage the loan had been reduced to $193,000
The parties spent about $40,000 on furniture, which was paid for from the husband’s savings accumulated prior to the parties’ relationship. The wife contributed by decorating the property, including sewing drapes and quilt covers, some painting and gardening.
On 1991, the husband purchased property at Property E for $161,000. The purchase price[9] was funded by the husband’s savings of approximately $20,000 and a loan from Bank 2.
[9] Including costs of purchase
The parties were married on 1991.
The property owned by Coombs Pty Ltd at Property D was further encumbered in 1992, and then sold in mid-1993. The husband does not recall what the further funds were used for, and believes that any net proceeds were put into the company’s account.
In 1994 the husband made a lump sum payment of approximately $13,500 towards the Property A mortgage. The moneys came from the husband’s (business). Further similar lump sum payments were made in 1999, in the total amount of approximately $64,000.
The parties purchased vacant land at Property B in 1996. The husband paid the deposit, stamp duty and costs of sale, and the balance of $120,000 was jointly borrowed.
In 1997, the husband sold the villa at Property E, and received $137,200[10] in net proceeds. The sale proceeds were used to pay off the loan secured over Property B.
[10] Rounded down
In 1997, the husband sold the Property C property, and after repaying the loan secured against it, applied the net sale proceeds of just over $45,000 towards the Property A loan.
In 2002, the Property A loan was repaid in full, and the mortgage held over the property was discharged. This was achieved by way of the monthly repayments and the lump sum payments made by the husband which over the years totalled approximately $122,500.
Between late 2001 and mid-2003, the parties designed and built a two storey beach house at Property B. The husband had significant involvement in the design and building process, including personal supervision of some work and some personal labour on the landscaping. The wife made contributions by decorating, gardening and pressure cleaning the exterior pavement and driveway.
The total cost for the Property B property amounted to just over $422,000 which the husband largely paid for from his business and sale of some investments.[11] When asked in cross-examination about her recollection of where the funds came from for the building of the Property B house and the payment of the Property A mortgage, the wife said that she just thought the husband was working very hard.[12]
[11] The husband deposes that part of the funds came from the sale proceeds of Property E which seems to be at odds with his evidence that the entire net proceeds from the sale of that property were applied to the mortgage over Property A. The husband was not asked any questions in cross-examination about this apparent inconsistency.
[12] As opposed to having significant funds/savings available to him
When it was completed, the beach house at Property B was used by the parties as a holiday home and also by their extended families and friends for various gatherings.
Until about 2010, the parties equally shared in the gardening and maintenance work on both Property A and Property B, but after that time the husband has been mainly responsible for such maintenance and gardening, including engaging and paying for such work to be done after his health deteriorated. The wife continued to do some gardening work.
Throughout the relationship, the wife did a significant portion of the household chores, including washing, cleaning, gardening, cooking, shopping and running errands. During the relationship the husband however also took on some of the responsibilities for cleaning, washing and ironing.
From about 2008 and post separation, the husband has primarily been responsible for attending to the family’s grocery shopping.
During the parties’ relationship until about 2009, the parties operated a joint bank account which was utilised by them for their day to day expenses, as well as joint expenses such as payments of council rates, water rates, insurances, groceries, medical bills, private health insurance, motor vehicle expense, clothes, petrol, educational expenses for the children, holidays and daily living expenses. Both parties’ incomes were deposited into this account and utilised in the manner described.
In about 2009, the wife retained the parties’ joint account and used it as her own, while the husband started using another bank account as his day to day account. Shortly thereafter, the wife advised the husband that she was not going to pay for any household expenses, but that she would pay for private health insurance and her own motor vehicle expenses. The husband continued to pay for everything else.
Consequently, the wife retained a large majority of her income which over the years accumulated to significant savings. Of those savings of over $128,000 which the wife held as at October 2015, over $100,000 was expended by the wife between October 2016 and November 2017. It appears a great deal of this money was spent on legal expenses.
It also appears that the wife has spent, since the proceedings commenced, significant effort in trying to chase every rabbit down its warren. She has issued subpoenas including to overseas institutions on the basis that she did not trust that the husband had complied with his obligations of full and frank disclosure.
Contributions to the welfare of the family
For a period of six years, the husband’s children from a previous marriage lived with the parties. The wife made significant contributions of the Robb & Robb[13] kind in respect of these children.
[13] (1995) FLC 92-555
The parties had two children of their own, who were both adults at the time of final hearing. Their first child Mr J was born in 1992, and the second child Ms D was born in 1995.
Both parties were involved parents doing their best given their differing work commitments. The wife, due to her employment not only being more flexible than the husband’s but also because of the shorter working hours, was the parent who took on more of the responsibilities for the welfare of the family.
The husband however was very involved with the children’s activities, including taking them to their extra-curricular activities, attending school functions and generally being involved in the children’s schooling and upbringing.
Other matters
The husband who was (employment omitted) in 1976, entered into a partnership in 1977 and operated a business. That business was sold in 1985.
The husband then (employment omitted), and from 1987 he was a (occupation omitted) trading as “Coombs”.
In 1993, the husband entered into a new partnership with his previous business partner, and the partnership continued to trade under “Coombs” until 2005.
In 2005, the husband suffered a serious cardiac arrest resulting in him not being able to return to work until 2006, and thereafter only on a part-time basis.
Between the date of the husband’s cardiac arrest and July 2013, the husband received income pursuant to an insurance policy, which paid him 70% of his pre-injury earnings. In July 2013 the benefits under the policy ceased as the policy term ended.
It was as a result of the husband’s illness that the partnership he operated was terminated in 2005. He was however employed by his former business as a part-time (occupation omitted). This arrangement continued until June 2016 when the business was sold[14] and the new business owners have retained the husband on the same arrangement, as a paid (occupation omitted) on a salary of $700 per week.
[14] By the husband’s former business partner
The wife is a (occupation omitted). She was in full-time employment at the commencement of the parties’ cohabitation.
During the parties’ relationship, the wife did assist the husband in his business by doing some of the bookkeeping.
The wife was a stay at home mother and homemaker after the birth of the parties’ children, however, during this period of time she (employment omitted) as and when she could. She returned to her (employment omitted) career in 1999, albeit initially on a casual basis and then as permanent/full-time employee.
The wife has over the years (employment omitted) at (employers omitted) and continues to do so, the various positions being casual, part-time or full-time. As at the date of her affidavit she was taking leave without pay.
The wife also works for an (employer omitted) as an (occupation omitted). Her financial statement indicates that this is a full time position.
The wife’s weekly income from her employment is currently well above the income the husband receives from his employment, although the husband has commenced receiving payments from his superannuation fund.
The wife’s financial statement evidences weekly expenditure of over $2600. She was not cross-examined on this. It is apparent that the figure for example at item 30, being the credit card payments set out a payment much higher than the minimum payment. If the minimum payment is taken into consideration, then the wife’s weekly expenditure is almost on par with her stated income. The wife conceded in cross-examination that the income she declared in the financial statement was incorrect, and it should have been $1700 per week rather than $1300 per week. An updated financial statement was ultimately tendered.
The husband’s financial statement, evidences weekly expenditure of once again, slightly over his weekly income. The husband was not cross-examined about this.
There is not significant difference between the parties overall net positions in terms of their income and expenditure, except it must be noted that the husband remains for the most part financially responsible for all household spending.
The parties’ daughter is presently living with the parties in the former matrimonial home. The parties are in disagreement as to where she will live once these orders come into effect. She is an adult who on the husband’s financial statement has her own income. The wife’s evidence is that their daughter is emotionally dependent on her.
Assessment of Contributions and s75(2) Factors
The Court finds that the parties, over the course of their long term marriage, made disparate but substantial contributions, each in their own way. The parties’ differing contributions were not only financial but also non-financial, direct and indirect. Without what each of the parties put into the relationship, the parties would not have had the assets they did at the conclusion of the relationship.
However, on analysing the parties’ evidence it is a finding of this Court that the husband’s contributions were of greater weight than those of the wife in terms of the effect of those contributions on the assets overall. This finding is made on the basis of:
a)They each made significant initial contributions towards Property A, the wife’s of $125,000 and the husband’s of $87,000;
b)The husband’s further lump sum contributions which resulted in an early repayment of the mortgage associated with Property A;
c)The husband’s property dealings over the early years of the parties’ relationship which resulted in the Property B property being mortgage free; and
d)The husband’s running of the business permitted the parties flexibility in terms of the husband’s income, including an ability by the husband to draw large lump sum payments.
The Court finds that the use of these assets by the parties early in the parties’ relationship to a large extent provided the solid foundation upon which their overall wealth was thereafter built.
Furthermore, the husband’s contributions after 2009 towards the expenses of both parties, in circumstances where the wife retained most of her income and expended those significant savings in the year leading up to final hearing, are also a reason as to why the husband’s overall contributions are given more weight than those of the wife.
The Court is satisfied that the husband has established significant early contributions, tipping the scales well over to his side. The Court is also satisfied that the parties’ non-financial contributions over the many years were equal, but for the wife’s contribution towards the husband’s children from an earlier relationship, which shift the scales slightly more towards the centre.
But for these contributions by the husband which are over and above the contributions made by the wife[15], and the use to which they were put, the wife’s submissions with respect to her contributions would have had more strength.
[15] As noted earlier and unless be thought otherwise, the wife’s contributions of the Robb & Robb kind, have already been given some weight and have been taken into consideration in the overall contributions by the wife.
Overall, the Court assesses the parties’ contributions as 55% to the husband and 45% to the wife.
This assessment is made on a broad brush approach, taking into consideration the assets each of the parties brought into the relationship, their contributions over many years of marriage, and their post separation contributions.
The wife, while she has the capacity to continue in paid employment, is of a skill-set which due to the parties’ relationship, was not given the opportunity of professional development the same way that the husband’s professional skill set was. It is unlikely that she will in the future be in a position to earn more than she was earning at the date of hearing. The wife also suffers from some ill-health.
The husband is of ill-health with significant detrimental effect on his capacity to earn an income. He is however, an experienced property investor and (occupation omitted), with many years’ professional experience and good reputation. He continues to work in a limited capacity.
It is the Court’s finding that both parties will continue to care for their daughter and will continue to provide her with a roof over her head if she so requires. No further adjustments will be made in respect of the care of the parties’ adult child.
A small adjustment of 2% will be made in the wife’s favour as a result of s75 factors.
Therefore, on the basis of findings with respect to contributions and the further findings in respect of s75(2) factors, an overall adjustment of 53% to the husband and 47% to the wife shall be made.
The Pool
At the time of final hearing, the property pool consisted of the following assets:
Item
Owner
Value
Property A
Joint
$1,800,000
Property B
Joint
$1,040,000
Coombs Pty Ltd (trustee)
Joint
$1,600
Bank 3 Personal accounts
Husband
$300
Motor Vehicle 2
Husband
$9,050
Coin, Stamp & Comic Collection
Husband
$87,062
Paintings from (countries omitted)
Husband
Nil
Bank 1 Accounts
Wife
$16,177[16]
Motor Vehicle 1
Wife
$12,350
Jewellery, Artworks & Paintings
Wife
Nil
TOTAL:
$2,966,539
[16] $6,640 in account and balance in trust
Superannuation:
Fund
Owner
Value
Coombs Super Fund
Husband
$996,887
Coombs Super Fund
Wife
$100,923
Super Fund K
Wife
$591,010
TOTAL:
$1,688,820
At the time of final hearing, the property pool consisted of the following liabilities:
Liability
Owner
Amount
Visa credit card
Wife
$2,634
Amex and Visa cards
Husband
$5,200
Agent commission on sale of Property B
Joint
$28,600
Conveyancer’s legal fees
Joint
$1,500
Reimbursement to husband paid advertising fee
Wife
$375
TOTAL Liabilities
$38,309
Therefore, the total net pool at the time of hearing is assessed at $4,617,050.
The husband will receive 53%, namely $2,447,037 and the wife will receive 47% namely, $2,170,013.
Conclusion as to Adjustment
Overall, an adjustment of 53% to the husband and 47% to the wife is just and equitable having regard to the parties’ contributions, ongoing financial circumstances and other relevant matters considered herein.
The parties both seek an order for the former matrimonial home to be retained by the husband and for the Property B property to be sold. At the time of final hearing that sale was well under way. The husband has given evidence that he is likely to be able to access his superannuation entitlements to pay the wife out. If this does not occur within a period of 60 days the home will then be sold. The wife will otherwise receive the entirety of the net sale proceed of Property B.
The parties’ superannuation interests will be adjusted in the same percentage split as the overall adjustment. In other words the husband is to receive $895,075 of the total superannuation assets[17] and the wife is to receive $793,745 of the superannuation assets.
[17] Although there is no separate superannuation pool
As such, the husband is to receive:
Item
Owner
Value
Property A
Husband
$1,800,000
Coombs Pty Ltd
Husband
$1,600
Bank 3 Personal Accounts
Husband
$300
Motor Vehicle 2
Husband
$9,050
Coin, Stamp and Comic Collection
Husband
$87,062
Coombs Super Fund[18]
Husband
$ 895,075
Amex and Visa Card debt
Husband
-$5,200
Payment to wife
Husband
-$340,850
TOTAL
$2,447,037
[18] After splitting order
As such, the wife is to receive:
Item
Owner
Value
Property B – proceeds of sale
Joint
$1,040,000
Bank 1 Account
Wife
$16,177
Motor Vehicle 1
Wife
$12,350
Coombs Super Fund[19]
Wife
$202,735
Super Fund K
Wife
$591,010
Payment by husband
Wife
$340,850
Agent commission on sale of Property B
Wife
-$28,600
Conveyancers legal fees
Wife
-$1,500
Reimbursement to husband for advertising fee
Wife
-$375
Visa credit card debt
Wife
-$2,634
TOTAL
Wife
$2,170,013
[19] After super splitting order, including wife’s interest of $100,923
Conclusion
The above adjustment will result in both parties having significant assets at their disposal, with the wife having a significant lump sum readily available to her. They will both retain the benefit of significant superannuation assets, and the wife will no doubt continue to accumulate superannuation as she continues to work.
In all of the circumstances and for all of the reasons set out above orders to be made as set out in the forefront of these reasons are just and equitable.
I certify that the preceding eighty three (83) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic
Date: 20 September 2018
6
2