Elders & Hewitt (No 4)
[2022] FedCFamC2F 686
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
Elders & Hewitt (No 4) [2022] FedCFamC2F 686
File number(s): DNC 584 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE YOUNG Date of judgment: 30 May 2022 Catchwords: FAMILY LAW - where the property pool is relatively limited - where the husband is incarcerated - where prolonged and serious family violence made the contributions of the wife more arduous - Court satisfied it is appropriate to make adjustment in favour of the wife Legislation: Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 157
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 90SM, 90SF
Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)
Cases cited: Barbey & Tuttle [2013] FamCAFC 44
Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757
Division: Division 2 Family Law Number of paragraphs: 55 Date of hearing: 25 March 2022 Place: Darwin Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Williams Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Collier of Collier Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Lipert Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms Gray of Gray’s Legal ORDERS
DNC 584 of 2020 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: MS ELDERS
Applicant
AND: MR HEWITT
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE YOUNG
DATE OF ORDER:
30 MAY 2022
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The Applicant retain as her property absolutely:
(a)The property at, and nett proceeds of the sale of, B Street, City C QLD;
(b)The property at, and nett proceeds of the sale, of D Street, Town E QLD;
(c)The 5 shipping containers and contents currently located at F Street, Town G QLD;
2.To give effect to Order 1(a) and (b) the Applicant and the Respondent shall forthwith do all acts and things and sign all necessary documents to effect the sale of the properties at B Street, City C QLD and D Street, Town E QLD (“the Properties”) by private treaty or auction as follows:
(a)Within 14 days of the date of these Orders, unless already listed, the Properties shall be listed with a sales agent nominated by the applicant.
(b)The listing price (if applicable) or reserve shall be nominated by the applicant.
(c)The applicant shall accept any offer that is at least 90% of the listing price or reserve.
3.Pursuant to s106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) a Registrar of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia is hereby appointed to execute all documents on behalf of the Respondent to give effect to the sale of the Properties, notwithstanding the Respondent has not been first requested to sign any documentation.
4.Upon settlement of the sale of the Properties, the proceeds of sale shall be distributed as follows:
(a)All costs and expenses of sale, including legal costs and disbursements, agent’s commission, conveyancer’s fees (including repayment of any such expenses as have been paid by either or both of the parties);
(b)The amount required to discharge any mortgage currently encumbering the Properties;
(c)The amounts required to pay all municipal and water rates outstanding with respect to the Properties;
(d)The balance to the applicant with such funds to be paid into the trust account of the applicant’s lawyers (Collier Lawyers Pty Ltd).
5.Pending the sale of the Properties, the applicant shall have sole use and occupation of the Properties.
6.Within 14 days of the date of these orders, the Respondent do all acts and things necessary to direct Mr H & Ms J to make available for collection by the Respondent or her agent, the 5 shipping containers and contents of those containers presently located at F Street, Town G QLD.
7.Unless specified in these orders and except for the purpose of enforcing the payment of any money due under these or any subsequent orders:
(a)Each party shall be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property (including choses-in-action) in the possession of, or held in the name of, such party as at the date of these orders.
(b)Money standing to the credit of the parties in any bank account is to become the property of the person so named as the owner of the bank account.
(c)Each party hereby foregoes any claim they may have to any superannuation benefits belonging to or earned by the other.
(d)All insurance policies shall become the sole property of the owner named thereunder.
(e)Each party shall be solely liable for an indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 10.14(b) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 10.13 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
Section 121 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) makes it an offence, except in very limited circumstances, to publish proceedings that identify persons, associated persons, or witnesses involved in family law proceedings.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under a pseudonym Elders & Hewitt has been approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE YOUNG
Background
This is an application brought by the de facto wife (“the wife”) for alteration of property interests pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The wife is 35 years old and works in administration. The respondent de facto husband (“the husband”) is also 35 years old and is a qualified tradesman. He is presently serving a sentence of imprisonment for offences committed against the wife.
The parties began their relationship while in high school and commenced living together in 2005, shortly after graduating. After leaving school the wife completed a traineeship and worked in various administration positions for the duration of the relationship. The husband worked as a tradesman. In about 2010 he began working in a “fly in fly out” (“FIFO”) capacity where he was usually away from home for periods of between 3 and 6 weeks. The parties separated finally in October 2018. There are two children of the relationship, X who is 11 years old and Y who is 8 years old.
This relationship was characterised by very serious family violence. In late 2018 the husband was charged with offences against the parties’ son, including aggravated assault, and serious offences against the wife, including aggravated assault and rape. The husband was sentenced to a period of 10 months imprisonment, suspended after 4 months, in the Local Court for the aggravated assaults and, in addition, a period of 2 years and 5 months for attempting to pervert the course of justice. He was later found guilty of offences against the wife in a trial in the Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years, backdated to 2019. Counsel for the husband foreshadowed an appeal against the Supreme Court conviction and sentence.
This matter first came before me in February 2021 without appearance by the husband. I made orders on 8 February that the husband was to be personally served and if there was no appearance by him the matter would proceed by way of undefended hearing. I was satisfied that the proceedings were brought to the attention of the husband by personal service. The husband did not appear.
On 10 November 2021 I made orders in an undefended hearing, permitting the wife to retain the two properties at D Street, Town E and B Street, City C in Queensland. On 2 December 2021 the husband filed an application to have the orders of 10 November 2021 set aside on the basis of r 10.13 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 (Cth) (“the Rules”), which provides for the Court to set aside or vary orders if they were made in the absence of a party. I was satisfied that the considerations for setting aside orders as outlined in the Full Court decision of Barbey & Tuttle [2013] FamCAFC 44 were satisfied. I made orders on 24 February 2022 that the matter was to be relisted for final hearing. An order was made pursuant to s 102NA of the Act and parties were legally represented.
Credibility
Credibility was an issue in this case. Generally, I found the wife to be a reliable and credible witness. She obtained valuations for most of the major assets and made several admissions against interest. I formed the view that significant parts of the evidence given by the husband were implausible and lacking substantiation. I will give an example of this. One of the issues in dispute centred on the ownership of five shipping containers and their contents. The wife estimated the value of these containers to be approximately $47,300 but because of access problems due to the containers being on the husband’s stepbrother’s property there has been no valuation. The husband asserted in his balance sheet included in the outline of case that the contents of the containers were worth approximately $100,000. However, in cross-examination, the husband denied that the contents of the containers were worth that much and told the Court that he sold them to his brother or step-brother for about $1,000. I do not accept his evidence about this.
The husband rejects a number of the wife’s valuations and asserts other values but he has not provided any admissible evidence to substantiate his claims. Further, it was apparent that the evidence of the husband was almost invariably transmitted through a lens of hostility and resentment towards the wife. I do not consider the husband to be a reliable witness and where the evidence of the parties is in conflict I prefer the evidence of the wife and the expert valuations provided.
Property Pool
As I have stated, there has been disagreement by the parties about the value of items in the property pool.
D Street, Town E
The property at D Street, Town E is the former matrimonial home. In December 2006 the parties jointly purchased D Street, Town E for approximately $217,000. In 2008 the parties consolidated a personal loan with the mortgage in order to purchase and build a shed on the property. The parties and their children lived in the property until they moved to the Northern Territory in mid-2015. In 2016, the parties began renting the property to assist with mortgage repayments. The wife says in her trial affidavit that there are currently no tenants in the property because it is on the market for sale.
I made orders on 10 November 2021 providing for the wife to retain all of the sale proceeds of the property at D Street, Town E. When I made that order I was told the property was worth about $300,000, though no valuation was provided. I accepted this estimate, largely on the basis that the hearing was undefended and because I considered obtaining a valuation would be unnecessarily onerous for the wife. The estimate provided by the wife, it seems, was inaccurate. I am told there is a contract for sale of the D Street, Town E property with a sale price of $420,000. I accept the property is worth $420,000 as per the contract for sale.
B Street, City C
The property at B Street, City C is vacant land. The parties purchased it in October 2017 for $19,500. The husband says in his trial affidavit that the parties purchased the land for future use by their children. The wife said the land was purchased to collect rental income from travellers who may wish to park vehicles and camping equipment on the vacant lot. It is not necessary to make a finding about the intended use of the land. I am satisfied B Street, City C is vacant land without a dwelling and is not currently in use. The wife obtained a valuation for this property at $45,000. I accept this valuation.
Shipping Containers
The forensic battle between the parties centred on the ownership of five shipping containers and their contents. The wife said in her affidavit, and I accept, that the five containers hold various household items, unregistered motor vehicles and related parts and equipment. The wife estimated the combined value of these chattels to be about $47,300, though there is no expert evidence about the value of the shipping containers and contents. The wife seeks to retain these items and/or sell them if she wishes.
The wife deposes, and I accept, that the husband arranged for his family to remove the containers from the D Street, Town E property and for them to be stored on land owned by the husband’s stepbrother. I suspect the wife may experience some difficulty in obtaining possession of and disposing of these chattels.
The husband took inconsistent positions in relation to the shipping containers. In his affidavit the husband suggested that the contents of the shipping containers were all his, or his family’s property. He states,
The items in the containers are no longer mine, I had to sell them to raise cash for my legal defence.
In his balance sheet, the husband asserted that the contents of the containers were worth approximately $100,000. When the husband was asked about this figure in cross-examination he said he knew nothing about it and that he had sold the contents of all five containers to his stepbrother for a total of $1,000. I do not accept the husband did so and I do not accept him to be a truthful witness in relation to this issue. His explanation of the sale of the containers and their contents or both was extremely vague, and I do not accept that they were sold to his step-brother for $1,000 or at all.
I find that the containers and their contents are the property of the parties and should be included in the property pool at the value asserted by the wife. I reject the assertion of the husband that the containers and contents are owned by his family members. There was no application by any of the husband’s family members to join the proceeding to assert a claim to the shipping containers or their contents.
Vehicles
The wife said she currently resides in a motorhome with the children. I accept her evidence. The husband asserted that the wife was living with her new partner but given my view of the husband’s credibility I give his assertion no weight. I made orders that the wife obtain a valuation for the motorhome, which was valued at $5,500. I accept this valuation.
After separation the wife purchased a motor vehicle, namely a Motor Vehicle 1 which she estimates to be worth approximately $20,000. She says in her affidavit she obtained a personal finance loan to purchase the car and there is approximately $12,000 owing. The wife provided a financial statement of her vehicle loan account for the dates January 2019 to March 2022. I accept that the original finance amount was $20,447 and that the balance of the loan is currently $11,950.
The wife concedes that in 2020 she sold 4 vehicles that belonged to the parties in order to meet ongoing living expenses. She says in her affidavit that the sale proceeds of the vehicles totalled $10,000. There is no valuation for these vehicles however I accept the wife’s evidence.
In 2019 the wife collected a box trailer from the husband’s brother, which she says is worth approximately $500. There is no valuation for the trailer however I accept the wife’s estimation as an admission against interest.
After the separation of the parties the husband retained the family motor vehicle, a Motor Vehicle 1, for his own use. The husband subsequently transferred the vehicle to his brother at no cost. He said that he does not know what his brother did with the vehicle and that he “had bigger things to occupy [himself] with”. I do not accept that the husband does not know what happened to the vehicle. The wife asserted that the husband transferred the vehicle to his brother so that he could sell the vehicle on behalf of the husband while he was incarcerated and send him the proceeds. The wife asserted that the vehicle was sold for approximately $10,000. She says in her affidavit that she witnessed the vehicle being driven by the husband’s brother and that the vehicle had a “For Sale” advertisement on it. She says she also saw the vehicle advertised for sale on Facebook, subsequently removed from Facebook and then witnessed a person unknown to her driving the vehicle. While there is no evidence before me about the sale proceeds of the vehicle, I accept that the vehicle was the property of the parties and the wife’s evidence as an indication of the vehicles worth. I propose to include the vehicle or the proceeds of its sale in the property pool as an add-back.
The wife also asserts there is some property owned by the parties and stored by the husband’s brother. The wife outlines this property in her affidavit as follows:
(1)A work truck estimated to be worth $5,000;
(2)A dual axle trailer estimated to be worth $2,000;
(3)Two small motorcycles estimated to be worth $2,000;
(4)A motorcycle estimated to be worth $5,000; and
(5)Tools and equipment estimated to be worth $45,000.
There is no other evidence beyond that of the wife about ownership and no evidence of valuation of this property. The husband has not referred to this property at any stage of the proceedings. I do not propose to include it in the pool.
Other Property
There were a number of other items included in the party’s balance sheets, though values were not agreed upon.
The wife states that she retained household goods to the value of about $5,000. The husband asserts that the value of those household goods is some $15,000, although he has not provided any evidence to support this. I will treat the wife’s asserted values as an admission against interest and accept her proposed valuation.
On 29 October 2018, the husband withdrew $13,990 from the party’s joint home loan mortgage redraw facility. The wife suggested this money was used by the husband’s mother to purchase two of the five shipping containers discussed above. The husband admits in his affidavit to withdrawing the funds but states that the money went towards paying for his legal fees in his various criminal matters. In any event, the funds were taken from the joint pool of assets after separation and I am satisfied that the amount of $13,990 should be treated as an add-back.
The husband also says in his balance sheet and financial statement of 3 March 2022 that he has a personal loan to Westpac in the amount of $40,000. The husband provided no evidence of this loan and I propose to exclude it. The wife has a credit card loan to Westpac in the amount of $3,800 and a loan to Company L in the amount of $1,110.
Superannuation
No order is sought in relation to the parties’ superannuation and that will remain unaffected. The superannuation interests of the parties are about $170,000 for the wife and $126,000 for the husband.
The balance sheet is as follows:
Description Husband Wife Totals Assets 1 D Street, Town E, QLD $210,000 $210,000 $420,000 2 B Street, City C, QLD $22,500 $22,500 $45,000 3 Shipping Containers and Contents $23,650 $23,650 $47,300 4 Motorhome $5,500 5 Motor Vehicle 1 $20,000 10 Box Trailer $500 12 Household goods retained by Wife $5,000 13 Sale Proceeds of vehicles retained by the Wife $10,000 Add Backs 14 Husband’s Legal Fees $13,990 15 Husband’s Sale Proceeds of Motor Vehicle 1 $10,000 Total Assets $280,140 $297,150 $577,290 Liabilities D Street, Town E Home Loan $106,267 $106,267 $212,534 Wife’s personal car loan $11,950 Wife’s Westpac credit card $3,800 Wife’s Company L Loan $1,110 Total Liabilities $106,267 $123,127 $229,394 Net Assets $173,873 $174,023 $347,896 Superannuation 1 Wife’s Superannuation $170,000 2 Husband’s Superannuation $126,000
Total Superannuation $126,000 $170,000 $296,000 Total Assets and Superannuation $299,873 $344,023 $643,896
Contributions
During the Relationship
The parties agreed that neither possessed any significant assets at the beginning of their relationship.
The parties jointly obtained a home loan to purchase the property at D Street, Town E in 2006. They had a redraw facility on their home loan which was used to purchase the property at B Street, City C in 2017. Both parties contributed to the mortgage repayments during the relationship.
Both parties worked full-time throughout the relationship although there was a period between 2013 and 2014 where the husband was diagnosed with depression and was unable to work. This was largely agreed between the parties, however, the husband asserted this period was for only about 6 months, and the wife said it was about 12 months. It is not necessary for me to make a finding about the exact period of time the husband was unemployed. During this period of unemployment, the husband worked as a handyman for additional income.
It appears the wife was responsible for all of the household duties including housework and caring for the children. I find this to be consistent with the nature of the husband’s work and I am satisfied that the wife made most of the non-financial contributions of the relationship.
If I took only these matters into account I would be satisfied that contributions of the parties during the relationship were approximately equal. However, in this case there has been a long history of family violence. It is necessary to consider the Full Court of the Family Court decision of Kennon v Kennon (1997) FLC 92-757. In Kennon the Court held that it had the power to assess the financial consequences of family violence upon satisfaction of three elements:
(1)There was a course of violent conduct;
(2)The violent conduct had a discernible impact on the victim; and
(3)The victim’s contributions to the relationship were made significantly more arduous as a result of the violent conduct.
In 2018 the husband was charged with three counts of aggravated assault against the wife and the parties’ then eight-year-old son. One count of aggravated assault was against the parties’ son, though it is unclear from the sentencing remarks in the Local Court of the Northern Territory what the aggravating factors were, as assault on a child and the use of a weapon are both aggravating factors. The wife said in evidence that the husband used a cattle-prod to threaten or assault his son however, the precise use of the weapon is not made clear in the sentencing remarks. Nevertheless, it is clear that these matters are very serious.
The other two charges of aggravated assault appear to have been offences against the mother. As noted, the husband was sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 10 months, suspended after 4 months. The husband was also sentenced to a period of imprisonment in 2019 for attempting to pervert the course of justice. For that offence he was sentenced to a further 2 years and 5 months.
The husband was not released from prison after this sentence as he was subsequently charged with a number of other offences. He was held on remand until he was sentenced by Judge K in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory in 2021. The husband was found guilty of 12 counts of sexual intercourse without consent and three counts of aggravated assault of the wife.
The wife outlined in her affidavit the nature of the husband’s conduct toward her and their children over many years. I accept the wife’s account of her experiences, though for the purpose of providing a succinct and appropriate summary I will refer to some passages of the sentencing remarks of Judge K (relying on s 157 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)).
In sentencing the husband his Honour said:
I have not dealt in detail with all of the assaults and bad behaviour you had exhibited towards the complainant [the wife] over the whole period of the relationship. Suffice it to say that during the relationship you were extremely controlling and demanding.
She not only had fulltime employment but she had to run the finances of your business which ran at a loss, attain extra money by doing other paid work, feed you and the children and attend to the children’s schooling, ensure that your alcohol was ready for you when you came home after work and to generally act as your personal servant.
His Honour continued:
You blame her for the fact that there was not enough money to meet all of the expenses, while at the time you indulged yourself in your hobby which you ordered parts both from Queensland and Northern Territory.
When money was tight, you became angry and violent towards her, regardless of whether this was her fault or not. The level of violence, punishment and degradation that you dealt her was extreme. The words “domestic violence” are inadequate to properly describe the torment that you caused her to suffer. Your behaviour was callous, controlling and sadistic.
I have considered the Victim Impact Statement by the wife in those proceedings. I am satisfied that the husband subjected the wife to coercive and controlling behaviour over the duration of the relationship, particular in relation to matrimonial finances. I am satisfied that the wife suffered humiliation, degradation, and violent and sadistic behaviour at the hands of the husband for many years. The evidence before me makes it abundantly clear that the wife suffered physically, psychologically and emotionally in this relationship. The harm caused by the husband in this relationship will likely affect the wife well into the future, such that she may have great difficulty recovering.
Post Separation
The parties separated finally on 26 October 2018 and the husband was incarcerated in 2018. In the nearly four years since separation the wife has been solely responsible for the care of the children.
At the time of separation, the property at D Street, Town E was tenanted to assist with mortgage repayments. In January of 2019 the husband contacted the real estate agent responsible for managing the tenants in the D Street, Town E property and instructed the agent to direct 50% of the rental income to be paid to his ‘prison account’. Between early 2019 and late 2019 the husband diverted some $3,743 of the rental income to this account. The husband said that he anticipated the bank would repossess the property at D Street, Town E, “because Ms Elders wouldn’t have enough money to pay for the mortgage.” The wife was solely responsible for making up the shortfall in the rental income so as to meet the mortgage repayments. I take this into account.
The tenancy agreement over D Street, Town E expired in October 2019 and was not renewed. The wife has been therefore responsible for meeting the mortgage repayments without assistance from the rental income, the maintenance and conservation of the properties at D Street, Town E and B Street, City C, and the preparation of the property at D Street, Town E for sale.
The wife said that from time to time, though it is not entirely clear to me when, the husband’s brother has made sporadic contributions to the mortgage repayment in amounts of $50 or $100. The husband said that his brother was acting in his capacity as the husband’s power of attorney when making those contributions to the home loan. I take this into account.
I have regard for the contributions made by the wife after separation of the parties. I have regard to the fact that the husband, knowing that the wife would be solely responsible for making the mortgage repayments, diverted rental income to his personal account. I am also satisfied that the contributions made by the wife were made more arduous in the sense referred to in Kennon v Kennon. Accordingly, I find that contributions to the non-superannuation property of the parties is 70% by the wife and 30% by the husband.
Section 90SF(3) factors
The factors of most significance in s 90SF(3) of the Act are as follows.
In relation to s 90SF(3)(b), the wife is employed as an administration assistant and earns a little over $1,000 per week. I have no reason to believe that the wife will not be able to remain gainfully employed in the future. As I have said, the husband remains incarcerated and will be for some years to come. His release date is in 2031 at the earliest or 2034 pursuant to his head sentence. I accept that he proposes to appeal his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court but as the likely outcome of any such appeal is speculative, I do not intend to give it significant weight.
In relation to s 90SF(3)(c), the wife bears the sole responsibility for day to day well-being and long term care of the parties’ two children. This is a major responsibility and one that must be recognised in a real and significant way.
In relation to s 90SF(3)(q), the husband pays no child support under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 and I do not envisage this will change in the foreseeable future. Both children will attain the age of 18 years before the husband is released from prison. The husband has no capacity to assist with the care of the children while he is incarcerated.
Counsel for the wife directed me to advice from the Australian Institute of Family Studies (“AIFS”) entitled New Estimates of the Costs of Children in Australia.[1] That advice was updated last in April 2018 and says, in brief, that the cost of raising a child in Australia for low-income families is approximately $170 per week per child. As I have said, the children in this case are aged 8 and 11. Having regard to the AIFS advice, it appears the cost of supporting these children to a minimum age of 18 years will be at least $150,000 and probably more. In my view, it is necessary that the husband should contribute at least half of this amount.
[1] Australian Institute of Family Studies, New Estimates of the Costs of Raising Children in Australia (Media Release, 17 April 2018) 1.
The husband will retain his superannuation interests and the fund can be expected to grow while he is in prison, notwithstanding he will not be able to contribute to it. He will be in his mid forties when he is released from prison. He will have many working years ahead and should be able to substantially recover his financial position.
Taking these matters into account, particularly in relation to the future needs of the children, it is necessary that a substantial further adjustment be made in favour of the wife. Accounting for add-backs, this will equate to a further $80,636 to the wife or, expressed as a percentage, 23.1%. The effect of this will be that the whole of the non-superannuation property be transferred to the wife and the proceeds of sale after payment of the liabilities are to be retained by her.
Taking into account the contributions of the parties and relevant s 90SF(3) factors the result, for non-superannuation interests, expressed as percentages, is 93.1% to the wife and 6.9% to the husband. I am satisfied this result is just and equitable.
The effect of the adjustment will be as follows:
Description Husband Wife Totals Assets 1 D Street, Town E, QLD $420,000 $420,000 2 B Street, City C, QLD $45,000 $45,000 3 Shipping Containers and Contents $47,300 $47,300 4 Motorhome $5,500 5 Motor Vehicle 1 $20,000 6 Box Trailer $500 7 Household goods retained by Wife $5,000 8 Sale Proceeds of vehicles retained by the Wife $10,000 Add Backs 9 Husband’s Legal Fees $13,990 10 Husband’s Sale Proceeds of Motor Vehicle 1 $10,000 Total Assets $23,990 $553,300 $577,290 Liabilities 1 D Street, Town E Home Loan $212,534 $212,534 2 Wife’s personal car loan $11,950 3 Wife’s Westpac credit card $3,800 4 Wife’s Company L Loan $1,110 Total Liabilities Nil $229,394 $229,394 Net Assets $23,990 (6.9%) $323,906 (93.1%) $347,896 Superannuation 1 Wife’s Superannuation $170,000 2 Husband’s Superannuation $126,000 Total Superannuation $126,000 $170,000 $296,000 Total Assets and Superannuation $149,990 (23.29%) $493,906 (76.71%) $643,896
There will be orders to reflect that all of the non-superannuation property is to be transferred to the wife.
I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Young. Associate:
Dated: 30 May 2022
0