COPELAND & GROSSMANN - [2015] FCCA 530

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COPELAND & GROSSMANN

[2015] FCCA 530

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – de facto relationship of 32 years – agreed asset pool – assessment of contributions not capable of precise mathematical calculation – both parties receiving age pensions.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975, ss.75, 79, 90SF, 90SM

Ackerman & Ackerman [2013] FMCAfam 109
Bigelow & Reuter [2006] FamCA 1455
Bremner & Bremner (1995) FLC 92-560
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Clives & Clives (2008) FLC 93-385
C & C (2005) FLC 93-220
Ferraro & Ferraro (1993) FLC 92-335
Fielding & Nichol [2014] FCWA 77
Garrett & Garrett (1984) FLC 91-539
Hayne & Hayne (1977) FLC 90-265
Hickey & Hickey (2003) FLC 93-143
Kessey & Kessey (1994) FLC 92-495
Lee Steere & Lee Steere (1985) FLC 91-626
Lovine & Connor and Anor (2012) FLC 93-515
OSF & OJK (2004) FLC 93-191
Parshen & Parshen (1996) FLC 92-720
Poulos & Poulos (1984) FLC 91-515
R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong [1976] HCA 39; (1976) 136 CLR 248
Russell v Russell (1999) FLC 92-877
Stanford v Stanford (2012) FLC 93-518; (2013) 293 ALR 70

Applicant:

MR COPELAND

Respondent:

MS GROSSMANN

File Number:

LNC 433 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Roberts

Hearing date:

19 February 2015

Date of Last Submission:

19 February 2015

Delivered at:

Burnie

Delivered on:

30 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr L Edwards

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Friend & Edwards Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr G Williams (on direct brief)

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Not applicable

ORDERS

That within thirty days MS GROSSMANN (“the respondent”) must transfer to MR COPELAND (“the applicant”) all her right title and interest in the property at Property O in Tasmania, more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume (omitted) Folio (omitted).
That the applicant retain one hundred and two thousand, one hundred and fifteen dollars ($102,115.00) from the proceeds of sale of the parties’ property at Property S in Tasmania currently deposited in an interest bearing account on trust for the parties by Friend & Edwards Lawyers (“the deposited funds”).
That the respondent retain the remaining balance of the deposited funds, together with all interest that has accrued on the total of the deposited funds.
That to give effect to Orders No. 2 and 3 hereof the parties must each do all things necessary to instruct Friend & Edwards Lawyers to distribute the sale proceeds and accrued interest in accordance with Orders No. 2 and 3 hereof.
That the respondent must transfer to the applicant all her right, title and interest (if any) in the Nissan (omitted) motor vehicle, tractor, boat, motor, shipping container and box trailer currently in the applicant’s possession or control.
That the applicant must transfer to the respondent all his right, title and interest (if any) in the Nissan (omitted) motor vehicle and any shares currently in the respondent’s possession or control.
That each party will otherwise be solely entitled to all other property and chattels of whatsoever nature…

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.

Continue reading COPELAND & GROSSMANN

Details

AGLC: COPELAND & GROSSMANN [2015] FCCA 530
Case: [2015] FCCA 530
Decision Date: 30 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Copeland & Grossmann, heard by Judge Roberts, the dispute concerned the division of property between the parties. The court was required to determine how the parties' various assets, including real estate, motor vehicles, and other chattels, should be distributed.

The court's reasoning focused on achieving an equitable distribution of the parties' property. This involved allocating specific assets and a portion of sale proceeds to each party. The orders reflect a division of both real property and personal possessions, with a clear directive on how jointly held funds were to be divided.

The court ordered that Ms. Grossmann transfer her interest in Property O to Mr. Copeland. Mr. Copeland was permitted to retain $102,115.00 from the proceeds of sale of Property S, with Ms. Grossmann to receive the remaining balance of those funds and all accrued interest. Further orders stipulated the transfer of various vehicles and chattels between the parties, with each party retaining other property in their possession.

Orders

Orders of the court

That within thirty days MS GROSSMANN (“the respondent”) must transfer to MR COPELAND (“the applicant”) all her right title and interest in the property at Property O in Tasmania, more particularly described in Certificate of Title Volume (omitted) Folio (omitted).

That the applicant retain one hundred and two thousand, one hundred and fifteen dollars ($102,115.00) from the proceeds of sale of the parties’ property at Property S in Tasmania currently deposited in an interest bearing account on trust for the parties by Friend & Edwards Lawyers (“the deposited funds”).

That the respondent retain the remaining balance of the deposited funds, together with all interest that has accrued on the total of the deposited funds.

That to give effect to Orders No. 2 and 3 hereof the parties must each do all things necessary to instruct Friend & Edwards Lawyers to distribute the sale proceeds and accrued interest in accordance with Orders No. 2 and 3 hereof.

That the respondent must transfer to the applicant all her right, title and interest (if any) in the Nissan (omitted) motor vehicle, tractor, boat, motor, shipping container and box trailer currently in the applicant’s possession or control.

That the applicant must transfer to the respondent all his right, title and interest (if any) in the Nissan (omitted) motor vehicle and any shares currently in the respondent’s possession or control.

That each party will otherwise be solely entitled to all other property and chattels of whatsoever nature and kind in the possession and control of that party as at the date of these 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.