EDDINGS & TANNERT

[2020] FCCA 2416

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EDDINGS & TANNERT [2020] FCCA 2416

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Property – de facto relationship – assessment of contributions.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.90SF, 90SM

Cases cited:

Robb & Robb [1994] FamCA 136

Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 19

Chapman & Chapman [2014] 2014 FamCAFC 91

Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877

Scott & Danton [2014] FamCAFC 203

Peters & Walker [2015] FamCA 732

Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120

Applicant: MR EDDINGS

Respondent: MS TANNERT

File Number: DUC 448 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Obradovic

Hearing date: 18 and 19 June 2020

Date of Last Submission: 24 July 2020

Delivered at: Parramatta

Delivered on: 16 September 2020

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Otrebski

Solicitors for the Applicant: Osborne Legal

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Battley

Solicitors for the Respondent: Warwick McCarthy & Co

ORDERS

1. On or before the expiration of 42 days from the date hereof the following is to occur simultaneously: -

   (a)Mr Eddings (“applicant”) and Ms Tannert (“respondent”) shall do all acts and sign all documents as are necessary to transfer to the respondent, all the applicant’s right, title and interest in the property situate at B Street, City C in the state of New South Wales (“B Street, City C property”).

   (b)The respondent is to refinance, pay out in full, discharge and transfer into her sole name, the mortgage secured over the B Street, City C property. The applicant and the respondent are to sign an authority and any other document required by the mortgagee to release the mortgage.

   (c)The respondent is to pay to the applicant the amount of $182,789.

2. Pending the transfer of the B Street, City C property in Order 1(a) the respondent shall have the sole right to occupy the property and during such right of occupation, the respondent shall be responsible for all mortgage payments, rates and outgoings of the property as they fall due up to and including the settlement date.

3. Other than as otherwise set out in these Orders, the parties are declared to have the sole right title and interest in any property which is, at the date hereof, in their possession, title or name and they shall be solely liable for and indemnify each other against any personal liabilities, including but not limited to:

   (a)Any other Real Estate in their name;

   (b)Motor vehicles in their possession or name;

   (c)Furniture, chattels and personal effects in their name or possession;

   (d)Bank accounts and monies invested in their names in financial institutions, shares, life insurance and superannuation interests;

   (e)Any debts and/or liabilities in their name; and

   (f)Any other business they may own or operate.

4. The parties and each of them is ordered to do all acts and things and sign all documents to give effect to these Orders and, in the event of either party failing, neglecting or refusing to do any act or thing or sign any document which is required to give such effect, the Registrar of the Federal Circuit Court is appointed pursuant to Section 106A of the Family Law Act1975 (Cth) as amended to do such act or thing or sign such document in the name of defaulting party and on that party’s behalf.

5. Remove all outstanding issues from the list of cases awaiting finalisation.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PARRAMATTA

DUC 448 of 2018

MR EDDINGS

Applicant

And

MS TANNERT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. These are the Reasons for Judgment with respect to property proceedings between Mr Eddings (“the applicant”) and Ms Tannert (“the respondent”). 

2. The parties were in a de-facto relationship for a period of some six years. There are no children of the relationship.

3. Each of the parties seek an order adjusting the parties’ property interests. The parties agree that the overall weight of contributions favour the respondent, but they cannot agree as to what their respective contributions were. A significant issue of dispute is how the liabilities of the applicant are to be treated. This is important as a large part of the financial contributions by the applicant was channelled through the applicant’s borrowings, which have remained at separation and final hearing.

Relevant Legal Principles

1. The overall approach to the determination of an application for property adjustment orders was set out by the High Court in Stanford v Stanford.[1]

   [1] [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 247 CLR 108 see in particular [37] to [42]

2. Such approach was subsequently considered by the Full Court of the Family Court in Bevan & Bevan[2], Chapman & Chapman[3] and Scott & Danton[4]. Such an approach is also applicable to proceedings pursuant to the de facto relationships provisions of the Act, namely Part VIIIAB.[5]

   [2] [2014] FamCAFC 19

   [3] [2014] FamCAFC 91

   [4] [2014] FamCAFC 203

   [5] See for example: Peters & Walker [2015] FamCA 732

3. 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.90SM(4)(a) to (c), the matters set out in s.90SM(4)(d) to (g) and in particular the subjective considerations as to the parties by having regard to the provisions of s.90SF(3) in so far as they are relevant.

4. 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.90SM(1) of the Act.[6]

   [6] see generally Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877; Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120, but in the context of s79

5. The just and equitable requirement is “one permeating the entire process”[7].

   [7] Bevan supra at [86]

Relevant Findings

1. The applicant was born in 1970 and is currently 50 years of age.

2. The respondent was born in 1973 and is currently 46 years of age.

3. The parties commenced a relationship in 2011 and commenced cohabitation in early 2012. They lived in a de facto relationship for a period of approximately six years. The parties ended their relationship in October 2017 and on 10 November 2017 the applicant moved out of the parties’ home.

Initial Contributions

1. At the commencement of the parties’ relationship, the applicant was the owner of a Model D truck and crate, which was valued at $71,000[8], he had some shares, he owned a motor vehicle which was encumbered, he operated a business known as “E” which had associated with it an overdraft account, and he also had superannuation. It appears that at the commencement of the relationship, the applicant’s net assets had a value of approximately $75,000[9] exclusive of the superannuation.

   [8] It does not appear on any of the evidence that the truck and crate were encumbered. In 2016 the net proceeds of sale were some $52,000

   [9] A value of $4,000 is estimated for the applicant’s assets other than the truck and crate

2. At the commencement of the parties’ relationship, the respondent was the owner of a property at F Street, City C (“F Street, City C property”). This was a property which the respondent acquired in 1998 for $132,000. As at 2011, the F Street, City C property was worth approximately $280,000, and the mortgage encumbering the property had a balance of some $63,000. The respondent also brought into the relationship a motor vehicle, savings, shares, accumulated superannuation and a credit card debt. The net financial position of the respondent at the commencement of the relationship was at least $220,000[10] exclusive of the superannuation.

   [10] A minimum value of $3,000 is estimated for the respondent’s assets other than F Street, City C property

Applicant’s Income and Borrowings

1. At the commencement of the parties’ relationship, in or around 2011, the applicant was working in his business “E”. His taxable income for the 2011 financial year was $0.

2. In the 2012 financial year, the applicant’s taxable income was $10,031 and in 2013, it was $17,516. Notwithstanding the taxable income, the applicant says that at the beginning of the relationship, the business was turning over around $80,000-$100,000 per annum.

3. In 2014 and 2015, the applicant’s annual taxable income was respectively $34,644 and $31,077. From 2015 the applicant started working in the transport industry which saw an increase to his annual income to $56,120 in the 2016 financial year. In the 2017 financial year, the applicant’s taxable income was $41,198, albeit he remained working as a transport worker. At the time of final hearing, the applicant’s income had increased to somewhere between $66,000 and $71,000.[11] 

   [11] $56,000 annual salary as a transport worker plus $10,000-$15,000 from the business

4. Throughout the parties’ relationship, the applicant operated an overdraft facility and from May 2012 he also had a business loan. All of the applicant’s earnings from his business and later from his employment as a transport worker were paid into the overdraft facility, until May 2017, when the applicant’s salary was paid into his personal bank account.

5. The bank statements in evidence show that the overdraft limit as at October 2011 was $30,000 and that the limit increased to $50,000 in about August 2013. Until the increase in limit, the balance of the overdraft fluctuated, and the facility was not consistently at the maximum or close to it. Indeed, during that period of time the balance was at times as low as $180.

6. It is clear from the overdraft bank statements that over the period October 2011 to April 2012[12]  there was close to $49,000 coming into the business overdraft. This appears to accord with the applicant’s evidence as to the turnover of the business at the start of the parties’ relationship[13]. 

   [12] just before the influx of $15,000 from the business loan

   [13] $79,000 turnover in six months, if continuing, would amount to an annual turnover of approximately $100,000.

7. As noted earlier, the applicant obtained a business loan in 2012. This loan was used as part of the overall borrowing facilities utilised by the applicant to fund his lifestyle. While the loan started off at $15,000 by the end of the relationship it was at $59,157[14]. At final hearing the balance owing on the business loan was $50,635.

   [14] This was not the maximum borrowing through this lending facility during the parties’ relationship

8. It appears from the applicant’s evidence that at various points in time the balances of the overdraft, business loan and ANZ Visa were as follows:

   a)In late September 2011, the balance of the overdraft account was $4,760 in debit.

   b)In May 2012, the applicant’s business loan was established to consolidate debts and the initial drawdown of $15,000 was applied to the applicant’s overdraft;

   c)In December 2012, there was a further drawdown on the business loan (to $50,000) with $35,000 transferred into the overdraft account such that the overdraft was in credit in the amount of $19,750.

   d)In December 2012, approximately $13,000 was transferred from overdraft into the applicant’s visa bringing the balance of the visa to zero. At this point the balance of the overdraft account was $5,630 in credit.

   e)In about August 2013, the applicant drew down $22,470 from the business loan account to pay $14,000 for a shortfall of the purchase of the B Street, City C Property;

   f)In May 2014, the business loan increased by a further $20,000. $19,790 taken from the business loan and paid into the overdraft account, bringing the balance of the overdraft to $29,930 in debit; and

   g)In January 2016, the applicant sold his truck and crate and the entire proceeds of sale being $52,800 were paid into the overdraft bringing the balance down to $6,455 in debit.

9. The matters noted at [21] above are but a few of the transactions on the accounts, but give some idea as to how the accounts were operated.

10. It is not for this Court to go through the applicant’s evidence with a fine tooth comb with a view to trying to ascertain what the purpose of various transactions was and what the outcome of those transactions was to the balance of the various accounts. Such matters were not addressed in submissions, and appropriately so, given that assessment of contributions is not a precise mathematical or tracing exercise.

11. The applicant had a practice of transferring money between different accounts to cover expenses which needed to be paid, including business expenses and interest. The total interest costs for the overdraft and business loan for the period to mid-2018 were approximately $57,500.

12. There are some obvious problems and/or inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. For example:

    a)The applicant’s oral evidence is that the business loan remained at around $50,000 for the duration of the parties’ relationship and that he has not been able to pay off any of the principal[15]. However, the schedule of statement balances annexed to the applicant’s affidavit indicate that the balance on the business loan was $48,881 as at December 2012, it then went as high as $66,900 as at May 2014, and then down to $59,160 as at November 2017 when the parties separated. Not only was the loan balance not consistently at $50,000 for the duration of the parties’ relationship, but there was a reduction in the amount owing (i.e. the principal) of almost $10,000 between May 2014 and November 2017.

    b)The applicant asserts in his sworn evidence that he paid for $2,000 for a Motor Vehicle 1 purchased in 2017 from the overdraft account[16]. When cross-examined about this evidence, the applicant first said that he did not pay for this car, then he said that the money came from his overdraft, then that the respondent actually paid for the car and finally that what he meant in his affidavit is that he paid for the maintenance of the vehicle.

    c)The applicant gives further evidence of his financial contributions[17] with a detailed list of regular joint expenses paid by him. The problem with his evidence therein is that the amount of money he says he spent on these joint expenses, far exceeds his taxable income, noting that the applicant was also contributing to the B Street, City C property mortgage at this time.

    [15] These propositions were put to him by Counsel for the respondent and the applicant agreed to them

    [16] Paragraph 39 of the applicant’s affidavit filed 8 August 2019

    [17] Paragraph 39 of the applicant’s affidavit filed 8 August 2019

13. The applicant’s borrowings (overdraft, business loan and credit card) were utilised by the applicant to fund his lifestyle, which included the lifestyle that he and the respondent enjoyed. There was intermingling of business and personal spending by the applicant throughout the parties’ relationship.  The applicant would withdraw funds from the overdraft to pay for things, including living expenses, business expenses, mortgage payments, utilities, renovations, business loan repayments, credit card repayments, and interest payments on the overdraft and the business loan.

14. While the Court appreciates that the applicant was in reality utilising the gross business turnover and various borrowings to fund the expenses paid by him, there was only so much money that was available to him at the end of the day. Ultimately, it could only the applicant’s taxable income[18] and the various borrowings he made from time to time that was available to fund private expenses.

    [18] There is no suggestion in the applicant’s case that the applicant’s business funded any of the parties’ private expenses

15. It is difficult to assess precisely the applicant’s financial contributions. The difficulty arises as a result of the way those contributions were made, and the way the applicant operated his overdraft, business loan account and credit cards. It is confusing even to the applicant, noting the problematic or inconsistent evidence that he has given in the proceedings.

16. It is therefore more likely than not that the applicant is either mistaken or that he has over exaggerated his financial contributions.

Respondent’s Income

1. Throughout the parties’ relationship and post separation, the respondent has been in paid employment as a public servant. She also earnt an income from a home business. Her income has increased from $70,000 to $78,390 over the years.

Real Property

1. When the parties commenced living together the applicant moved in with the respondent and her children to her property at F Street, City C.

2. The parties carried out renovations to the F Street, City C property in early 2013. There is dispute between the parties as to the costs of the renovations and how they were funded. The respondent, through her parents contributed $8,000 and the applicant through his borrowings appears to have contributed $8,600.

3. The applicant contributed towards the renovations of the F Street, City C property, not only by facilitating borrowing for the cost of some of the renovations as noted above, but also by improvements he himself participated in, such as the pouring of concrete for the garden shed, erecting the garden shed, digging holes for the poles of the pool fence and building the colourbond fence.

4. The parties jointly purchased a property at B Street, City C in 2013 (“B Street, City C property”). The purchase price was $490,000. The initial deposit of $50,000 was provided by the respondent’s parents, which was repaid by the respondent. The applicant’s parents provided $25,000 for stamp duty, which was also repaid by the respondent. As such, the respondent contributed $75,000 towards the purchase of this property. The applicant contributed $14,000[19] towards the costs of purchase, which came from the business loan.

   [19] T:29

5. The mortgage repayments for the B Street, City C property were met by the applicant for the first six months[20], and then jointly by the parties until separation[21].

   [20] $12,744

   [21] A total of some $100,000

6. Both of the parties contributed to the upkeep and maintenance of the property, by performing various household chores and gardening work. It was accepted by the applicant during the proceedings that without the respondent’s earnings, he would not have been able to obtain the finance to purchase the B Street, City C property.

7. After the parties moved into the B Street, City C property, the F Street, City C property was tenanted out. It has remained as an income earning property since that time, albeit there have been periods of time when the property was vacant. The rental income has at all times been greater than the minimum mortgage repayment. At various times, the respondent had assistance with the mortgage repayments from her mother.

8. At the time of final hearing, the mortgage secured over the F Street, City C property stood at $85,740. The respondent has twice increased that mortgage. The applicant did not raise any waste argument in respect of any part of this liability. It will therefore be included in the pool in its entirety.

9. The parties did not have any children together, although the respondent’s two children from a previous relationship lived with the parties throughout their relationship. They now remain living with the applicant, and they are presently 12 and 11 years old.

10. The applicant has two children from a previous relationship, who are both adults now. During the parties’ relationship, the applicant’s children would spend time with the applicant and respondent at their home. One of those children presently resides with the respondent.

11. The applicant made contributions of the Robb & Robb[22]  kind by playing a role in the parenting of the respondent’s children. The respondent likewise contributed in a similar manner in respect of the applicant’s children, although they were much older and spent significantly less time with the parties than the respondent’s children.

    [22] [1994] FamCA 136

1. During the parties’ relationship, the applicant’s income was at all times lower than that of the respondent. In total, the applicant earnt just over $190,000 while the respondent earnt close to $503,000 during the same period of time.

2. The Court accepts that each of the parties utilised their income for the benefit of the parties jointly and the assets they held and continue to hold. The parties kept their finances separate, that is, except for the payments by the respondent of half the mortgage payments into the applicant’s overdraft account, there was no other intermingling of funds in terms of a joint bank account or joint credit card or similar.

3. The Court also accepts that the parties’ debts, as acquired during the relationship were acquired for the benefit of the parties jointly. The respondent’s case, as run at final hearing, did not seek to apportion the applicant’s liabilities into private or business debts. As is evident from these Reasons for Judgment read as a whole, it is appropriate for the entirety of the applicant’s liabilities at the time of hearing to be included in the pool.

4. The Court finds that the borrowings made by the applicant were by and large done without the knowledge and approval of the respondent.

5. Since separation, the respondent has been solely responsible for meeting all of the mortgage repayments over the F Street, City C property. She has also met all of the mortgage repayments[23] over the B Street, City C property. While she has had exclusive occupation of that property post separation, she has also been responsible for all of the maintenance and upkeep.

   [23] Totalling close to $62,000

6. The applicant presently lives in rental accommodation and he has re-partnered. The applicant is employed as a transport worker for two companies in City C and he also runs a small business, which does not have any employees.

7. As noted earlier, the respondent presently remains living in the B Street, City C property, with her two children and the applicant’s adult child. The respondent is employed as a public servant and works on a full-time basis. 

8. Both parties have superannuation entitlements which have accrued over many years and not just during their relationship. The respondent’s superannuation entitlement of some $212,000 is greater than the applicant’s of some $178,000, however given the parties’ ages and continued working capacities, the disparity is not significant.

The Pool and Determination of Contributions

Pool of Assets

1. The Court finds that the property pool consists of the following:

   Assets:

Asset	Owner	Value
B Street, City C property	Joint	$590,000
F Street, City C property	Respondent	$360,000
Camper Trailer	Applicant	$1,500
Boat	Applicant	$8,000
Motorbike	Applicant	$1,500
Motor Vehicle 1	Respondent	$12,000
Truck	Applicant	$10,000
G Shares	Applicant	$2,018
G Shares	Respondent	$1,453
“E” business	Applicant	Nil
“H” business	Applicant	Nil
Total	$986,471

Liabilities:

Liability	Owner	Value
Mortgage on B Street, City C property	Joint	-$377,880
Mortgage on F Street, City C property	Respondent	-$85,740
Business overdraft	Applicant	-$58,079
Business Loan	Applicant	-$50,635
Car Loan	Applicant	-$15,122
Visa Card	Applicant	-$2,371
ANZ Visa Card	Applicant	-$7,356
J Credit Card	Respondent	-$18,690
Total	-$615,873

Superannuation:

Fund	Member	Value
Super Fund K	Applicant	$178,746
Super Fund L	Respondent	$179,892
Super Fund K	Respondent	$31,339
Total	$389,977

1. Neither party seeks a superannuation splitting order.

2. It was not suggested by either party that the Court should adopt a two pool approach in respect of the parties’ superannuation benefits and the balance of the assets. It is, in all of the circumstances appropriate to consider the parties’ assets and liabilities as part of the one pool.

3. The total net pool of assets is $760,575.

4. The parties are in significant dispute as to how the contributions by them should be assessed:

   a)The applicant argues that there should be a 37.5% division of property in his favour on contributions with a further 3.5% adjustment for s.90SF(3) factors, totalling a 41% adjustment of the pool to him.

   b)The respondent argues that there should be a 75% division of property in her favour based on contributions and a further adjustment of 5% in favour of the respondent. However, the respondent submits that she would be “content” with an overall 75:25 alteration.

5. It is not in dispute between the parties that the Respondent brought into the relationship the F Street, City C property, where the parties lived for a period of about two years. This is a significant initial contribution by the respondent, not only in terms of the initial financial contribution but also the use to which the asset was put.

6. The applicant’s initial non-superannuation contribution was the truck and crate, which was sold in 2016 and resulted in a lump sum contribution towards the reduction of the overdraft facility at that time. This particular contribution is of a different character to the other contributions made by the applicant through the use of his overdraft facility and business loan as described further below. So as to avoid any confusion, the contribution is not being counted twice. It is considered an initial contribution the use of which was to the benefit of the parties jointly.

7. However, just as there are non-financial contributions, including indirect contributions by the applicant towards the F Street, City C property throughout the relationship, there are also similar contributions by the respondent towards the truck and crate albeit of a much more indirect and limited nature.

8. After the parties purchased the B Street, City C property, and for the first six months, the applicant made all of the mortgage repayments. The payments were made from the overdraft facility. Thereafter and until separation, the respondent paid half of the mortgage repayment into the applicant’s overdraft, and from there the full repayment would be debited.

9. Considering the parties’ respective incomes over the relevant period of time and noting the findings as to how income was utilised, it is apparent that the respondent’s financial contributions were significantly greater than that of the applicant. The non-financial contributions during the parties’ relationship are assessed as equal. Post separation the respondent’s non-financial and financial contributions are greater than those of the applicant.

10. A complexity in these proceedings arises out of the fact that the applicant had a debt of over $108,000 at the conclusion of the parties’ relationship. It is a debt that is associated with borrowing and re-borrowing by the applicant to pay for living expenses, mortgage payments, renovations and other contributions as found earlier.

11. Given that there is a debt associated with these contributions, which is at most on par with the actual contributions[24], it would be perverse to give to the applicant credit for all of the contributions but hold both parties liable for the debt.

    [24] But perhaps less so, given that the overdraft and business loan were also utilised for the purposes of the applicant’s business

12. One way to approach the matter is to assess the applicant’s contributions on both accounts, that is, the positive and the negative contributions. In essence, it is to accept the submission made in the respondent’s case that if the debt is to be a joint debt then there has to be a negative contribution or a course of conduct where the net assets have been reduced by the amount of the overall borrowings. This approach would require an almost dollar for dollar approach, which in the circumstances is not appropriate because of the lack of precise evidence (including expert evidence) and it would require certain inferences to be drawn about the value of the contributions compared to the value of the debt. 

13. Alternatively, if the debt is to be a ‘joint’ debt then the contributions associated with the debt must be ‘joint’ contributions.

14. It is the second course which is preferred as it: (1) appears to be just and equitable; (2) is easier to apply; and (3) is simpler to understand. The outcomes of the two approaches in the end would no doubt be the same or similar, with the first proposed approach in all respects being too mathematical and artificial.

15. In the circumstances of taking the joint debt/joint contributions approach, the Court recognises that there are sole contributions associated with the applicant making the overdraft and business loan facilities available for use by the parties (through him) in the manner which they have been used, which included inferentially the parties’ acquisition of the assets through the applicant’s borrowings, even where the respondent did not know about the borrowings. The overdraft and the business loan also a financial resource for the parties. However, they came at a significant cost, noting the amount of interest paid for those borrowings.

16. The Court in taking a broad-brushed approach, finds that the contributions favour the respondent and assesses the overall contributions as 70:30 in her favour.

17. The parties are similar in age, neither of them have any health issues, and both will continue working and earning an income. The respondent has greater superannuation but also the additional responsibility of the care of her two children, who are still relatively young. The applicant lives in rental accommodation with a new partner. The respondent continues to live in the former home of the parties, a property which she will retain, together with the further property held in her name. She also has a financial resource in her mother, who has assisted her in the past to quite a significant extent. The Court finds that there should be a further adjustment of 3% for the s90SF(3) factors in favour of the applicant.

18. As such, there will be an overall adjustment of 33% to the applicant and 67% to the respondent.

19. Based on the net pool of $760,575, the applicant will receive $250,990 (33%) and the respondent will receive $509,585 (67%), made up as follows:

    To the applicant:

Asset/Liability	Value
Camper Trailer	$1,500
Boat	$8,000
Motorbike	$1,500
Truck	$10,000
G Shares	$2,018
“E” business	Nil
“H” business	Nil
Super Fund K	$178,746
Payment from respondent:	$182,789
Business overdraft	-$58,079
Business Loan	-$50,635
Car Loan	-$15,122
Visa Card	-$2,371
ANZ Visa Card	-$7,356
Total:	$250,990

To the respondent:

Asset/Liability	Value
B Street, City C property	$590,000
F Street, City C property	$360,000
Motor Vehicle 1	$12,000
G Shares	$1,453
Super Fund L	$179,892
Super Fund L	$31,339
Mortgage on B Street, City C property	-$377,880
Mortgage on F Street, City C property	-$85,740
J Credit Card	-$18,690
Less Payment to the Applicant	-$182,789
Total	$505,585

1. The above division of property will see the respondent retain two properties together with mortgages associated with those properties, all of her superannuation and other assets and liabilities.

2. With the payment to the applicant of a lump sum of $182,789, the applicant will have the benefit of a significant amount of superannuation, all of his other assets and he will essentially be debt free, with a small lump sum left over.

3. This is an outcome which is just and equitable in all of the circumstances.

4. For all of these reasons, orders are made as set out at the forefront of these Reasons for Judgment.

I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic

Associate: 

Date: 16 September 2020