F and F
[2000] FMCAfam 85
•15 December 2000
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| F & F | [2000] FMCA fam 85 |
| PROPERTY – Superannuation – Compensation payments |
| Applicant: | G D F |
| Respondent: | J L F |
| File No: | NZ2797 of 2000 |
| Delivered on: | 15 December 2000 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Hearing Date: | 22 & 23 November 2000 |
| Judgment of: | Donald FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Powe, Solicitors DX 21601 Maitland |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Noronha, Solicitors DX, 21604 Maitland |
ORDERS
That the Wife pay to the Husband the sum of $559
That within 28 days of the payment of the sum referred to in Order
1 that the Husband and Wife do all acts and things to transfer to the Wife absolutely all the Husband’s interest in the property situate at and known as 120 H Street, A in the State of New South Wales being the property more particularly described in folio identifier 11/A/4748 (“the home”).That contemporaneously with the aforesaid transfer, the Wife do all reasonable acts and things to discharge both the mortgage in favour of St George secured against the title to the home and discharge the St George Home Loan Plus account and/or otherwise indemnify the Husband absolutely for all liability under the said mortgage and the said loan.
That subject to the above each party shall be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property and chattels of whatsoever nature and kind in the possession of such party as at the date of these Orders and that for such purpose bank accounts are deemed to be in possession of the person whose name appears on the bank’s record thereof, insurance policies are deemed to be in the possession of the beneficiary thereof and superannuation entitlements are deemed to be in possession of the person who is named as the worker whose age or working future provides the conditions for payment out of such entitlements.
That subject to the above each party shall indemnify the other for any liability attaching to any property, whether that be realty or personalty to be retained by the party.
That the Husband and Wife do all acts and things and give all consents and execute all documents and writings necessary to give effect to the Orders made herein.
That in the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument, the Registrar of the Court is hereby appointed pursuant to Section 84 to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
NZ 2797 of 2000
| G D F |
Applicant
And
| J L F |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Orders sought by each of the parties
The Applicant Wife, in her document "Orders Sought by Wife" has sought the transfer to her of all the Husband's interest in the former matrimonial home on the basis that the Husband would be indemnified in relation to the loan secured against it. On the Wife's Application, the Wife and the Husband would otherwise retain all other property currently held by each of them.
The Respondent Husband, in his Response, seeks to have the former matrimonial home sold with a distribution of the nett proceeds being divided so that the Wife receives 65% and the Husband 35%. The Husband also seeks a further order that each party retains all other property in that party's possession.
Approach
The Full Court of the Family Court of Australia in Pastrikos v Pastrikos (1979) 6 Fam. LR 497 has provided guidance as to how the Court should approach an application under section 79 of the Family Law Act:
a)Under sec.79, the Court has to embark on a dual exercise. The first part of the exercise is to determine the nature and, so far as possible, value of the property of the parties in issue in the proceedings. Usually, the whole of the property of the parties will be relevant;
b)Then the Court proceeds to make some assessment of the extent of each party's contribution to those assets, within the meaning of para (a) and (b) of sec. 79(4). This assessment is sometimes quantified in terms of percentages or values. However, it is expressed, the assessment is an important part of the exercise. It is not necessary that a party's contribution be tied down to a specific asset; it may be assessed as a general contribution to the property of the parties if the circumstances warrant. The second part of the exercise is to consider the financial resources, means and needs of the parties and the other matters set out in sec. 75(2) so far as relevant.
The approach was further discussed in In the Marriage of Ferraro (1992) 16 Fam LR 1:
A now well established line of authority in this court indicates the approach normally to be taken to the exercise of the discretion in s 79 proceedings. That approach is firstly to ascertain the property of the parties at the time of the hearing, then to consider the "contributions" of the parties within paras (a) to (c) of s 79(4), and then to consider the matters in paras (d) to (g), more especially para (e) which takes up by reference the provisions of s75(2) and which are generally referred to as the "s 75(2) factors".
Evidence
The Applicant Wife has relied upon her Financial Statement sworn
23 March 2000 and her affidavit sworn 14 November 2000.
The Respondent Husband relied upon his Financial Statement sworn 9 November 2000, his Affidavit sworn 9 November 2000 and upon the affidavit of P C sworn 13 November 2000.
I have also had regard to the oral evidence given by both the Applicant and the Respondent as well as the exhibits tendered in these proceedings.
Property
As indicated by the authorities already referred to, it is the first task of this Court to ascertain what were the assets of the parties at the time of the hearing.
The "Statement of Assets and Liabilities" provided to the Court as an aide-memoir conveniently sets out the position of the parties as at the commencement of the relationship, at separation, and at the date of hearing from the Wife's perspective. I adopt the same format and find that the assets and liabilities of the Husband and the wife were:
Commencement of relationship:
a)Assets:
i)Wife - savings $4300 (being from sale of Suzuki Hatch motor vehicle), furnishings and glory box;
ii)Husband - personal effects and motor vehicle (Honda Civic).
b)Liabilities
i)Wife - Commonwealth Bank of Australia loan re motor vehicle;
ii)Husband - Custom Credit Hire purchase re motor vehicle.
At separation:
a)Assets
i)Cash taken by Husband $350;
ii)Falcon station-wagon motor vehicle;
iii)Caravan E$500;
iv)Residence at 120 H Street A - E$74,000; and
v)Contents of home - value not known.
b)Liabilities
i)NRMA loan E$3,000;
ii)Loan in relation to gas heater E$650; and
iii)St. George accounts:
·Re home loan account $29,500
·Line of credit $20,000.
Date of hearing:
a)Assets
i)Falcon station wagon motor vehicle - I note that this motor vehicle has been sold by the Husband for $1,500 and, according to his evidence, the funds expended on general living expenses. It is appropriate and fair that this amount is notionally added into the assets available for distribution at the price of sale - $1,500.
ii)Residence at 120 H Street, A. In relation to this home, I find the value to be $74,000. This value is ascertained by reference to the affidavit of P C, valuer which was filed by the Husband and not subjected to challenge;
iii)Caravan $500. As discussed elsewhere, despite cross-examination touching upon another caravan used as part-exchange, there is insufficient evidence before the Court to enable me to make a finding in that regard;
iv)Contents of home - In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept that the contents of the home have that value estimated by the Wife in her Financial Statement sworn 23 March 2000 - $2,000.
v)Compensation payment received by the Husband (discussed below) - $13,800 less that part of the funds used to pay the NRMA account and AGC Account ($3,760) - $10,040;
vi)The total asset pool is $88,040.
b)Liabilities
i)St George account - home loan account $26,278;
ii)St George account - line of credit $20,096;
iii)Wife's loans from family - $1,400;
iv)Wife's Lowes account E$200;
v)Wife's legal costs E$5,500.
vi)The total liabilities are $53,474.
c)Net assets are $34,566
d)Financial Resources
i)Husband's superannuation - having regard to Annexure "D" of the Husband's affidavit sworn 9 November 2000, I find that the total value of superannuation benefits preserved for the Husband is $15,644.73. I note that this was the value of his fund as at 28 August 2000. There is no other evidence as to the value of such superannuation before the Court. This superannuation should be treated as a resource and will be considered when examining the factors listed in s.75(2) of the Act;
ii)I also note that it was revealed during the course of proceedings that there were two small superannuation policies, one for each of the Husband and Wife and which were valued at approximately $800 each.
Husband's compensation payment
I find that the Husband was injured when working at P&J Welding on 9 February 1993. The Husband acknowledged that during his five weeks at home following the injury, the Wife assisted him by providing "as much care as a wife would". I find that the Wife did nurse the Husband during this period and did assist him by dressing the wound.
I find that eventually, the Husband received a total of $13,800 as compensation for his injury. A further sum of $1,725 was onforwarded to the Health Insurance Commission.
It is the Husband's evidence that he paid from the amount received $3,000 to NRMA to discharge a loan, $760 to AGC and $125 for a hardware bill. None of those payments appear to be in contention. In his affidavit, the Husband stated that he had spent a further $4,000 of the amount received on purchasing "furniture including beds, to be used by my children during contact visits". In his oral evidence presented to this Court, he amended that sum to "approximately $1,800 to $1,900". The balance, he states, was spent on general living expenses as well as his contributions to mortgage payments. In cross-examination, the Husband agreed that he had spent $2,000 on a trip to Queensland, $1,400 on an engagement ring for his new fiance and various items for his new partner's home. He eventually acknowledged that persons other than the children sometimes used those items.
The Wife has referred me to authorities from which it may be argued that the amount received may be included in the assets of the marriage. With respect, I accept that submission. The injury was received whilst the marriage was subsisting. It is conceded that the Wife assisted the Husband in his recuperation. As the Husband was unfit for work for 5 weeks, it would also be the case that the Wife had to shoulder an increased burden as home-maker and parent during the same period. It is an asset to which I should have regard.
Further, I note that the Husband has now disbursed the funds constituted by the compensation payment. In the interests of fairness, it is appropriate that these funds be notionally added to the pool of assets available for distribution. I also accept that these funds constitute a direct financial contribution by the Husband to the acquisition of property of the marriage
History
Having regard to the evidence to which I have referred, I make the following findings as to the parties.
The Applicant Wife is 37 years of age and the Respondent 39 years of age. They married in March of 1984 and commenced to cohabit on that date. The parties separated on 18 October 1998.
There are two children of the marriage, B D F born 15 October 1985 and S L F born 27 January 1988. Each of the children resides with the Wife.
As at the date of the marriage of the parties, each worked for the Wife's parents in a service station/general store at A, New South Wales. The Husband was employed as a driveway attendant and the Wife worked as a sales assistant. The Husband and the Wife were paid a total of $160 per week and were provided with free accommodation at the service station.
Shortly before the marriage, the Wife sold her motor vehicle for $4,300 and the proceeds of the sale were used by the parties to finance their honeymoon. The wife also had some furnishings consisting of a single bedroom suite, a lounge suite, kitchen setting and various manchester items.
The Husband brought into the marriage some personal items and a motor vehicle that was subject to finance. This motor vehicle was valued at approximately $2,500.
Except for the funds from the sale of the Wife's motor vehicle, the parties had no savings and I find that neither party had superannuation entitlements.
Shortly after marriage, the Wife's parents were unable to afford to pay wages for the Husband and the wife for their services to the business. Instead, they assisted the parties by providing funds to pay for a loan that the Wife had for the purchase of the Wife's motor vehicle and to pay out the existing finance on the Husband's motor vehicle.
From about 1985 the Husband obtained casual employment as a boilermaker and labourer and by the time of the birth of the parties' first child, he was employed as a boilermaker on a full-time basis. I find that the Husband continued to work at the Wife's parent's service station as time permitted.
The Husband's Honda motor vehicle was sold by him and the loan for the purchase of that vehicle was paid out. The Husband then purchased a 1977 Ford XC Falcon sedan.
In 1987, the parties obtained a further loan of approximately $2,000 from AGC Finance to purchase a Cortina motor vehicle. In about 1993, this motor vehicle was sold for approximately $300 and a loan of $12,000 was obtained, again from AGC, to purchase a 1987 FX Ford Falcon. About 12 months later, maintenance was needed to be carried out on that motor vehicle. A Home Equity loan was obtained from the St George Building Society with a limit of $20,000. This loan was used to pay out the AGC loan and to carry out repair work on the Ford Falcon. The balance of the loan was used to purchase curtains and blinds for the home, an above ground swimming pool, lino and carpet, a washing machine and general living expenses. That line of credit was also used for dental work on the Wife necessitated by accident in the home.
The Husband and Wife purchased a second-hand Millard caravan in 1995. There was some cross-examination concerning the part trade of another on site van in partial payment of this one. There is no acceptable evidence as to the value of that van. I find that the purchase price of this caravan that which caravan remains at the home with the wife was $500. It is currently unregistered.
In 1997, a loan was obtained in the name of the Wife from the NRMA to enable a new motor to be installed in the Falcon motor vehicle.
When the Husband left the matrimonial home on 18 October 1998, the Wife borrowed $200 from her parents for living expenses to assist her until Social Security benefits could be obtained. From that date until about August 1999, the Husband continued to pay a half share of the loan repayments which had been secured over the home. This totalled approximately $70 per week which was paid by him. He stopped making these contributions when he found that he did not have sufficient funds to meet his various commitments.
In December 1998, the Husband withdrew from the St George home loan facility, an amount of $600 to pay for the registration and insurance costs for the Falcon motor vehicle.
In or about February 1999, the Husband paid the balance outstanding on the NRMA loan and the balance of an amount owing for the purchase of a gas heater for the home and which is referred to below.
In or about February 1999, the Husband received a compensation award of $13,800.
About twelve months after separation, the Husband informed the Wife that he was no longer going to make any further payments on the home. He had continued to meet half the mortgage payments on the home since the date of separation. The Wife approached the Westpac Bank and obtained approval for a loan of $50,000 so that the home could be transferred into her name.
The Husband left his employment in April 2000. That employment was at a salary of $45,000 per annum. He obtained new employment with a salary of approximately $20,000 per annum. This had the effect of reducing the amount of Child Support payable by him from $147 per week to $55.95 per week.
In or about December 1998, the Wife borrowed $2,300 from her parents to purchase a 1985 Toyota Corolla motor vehicle. The Wife subsequently sold that vehicle. It is her evidence, which I accept, that she was forced into selling that motor vehicle because of the reduction of Child Support referred to above. The Wife received an amount of $2,600 from that sale and used those funds to repay her parents and to purchase a new refrigerator. Funds were also used to purchase some prescription glasses for the Wife.
Matrimonial home
From the date of marriage until about September 1986, the parties lived in living quarters at the Wife's parent's service station. The parties then moved to rented premises at H Street A. The parties eventually purchased these premises in 1987.
The premises at H Street were purchased using the Husband's tax refund of about $1,000 and the First Home Owner's Grant of $2,500 together with a further sum of $1500. The Wife alleges in her affidavit that her parents gifted the $1500. The Husband alleges in his affidavit that the said sum came from the sale of a boat that had been given to them by the Wife's parents. In her oral evidence, the Wife acknowledged that this was the case and I so find.
Further, the Wife's parents paid out the loan for the Wife's motor vehicle which had been sold prior to marriage and also a loan which had been used to purchase the Falcon motor vehicle which has been previously referred to. The balance of the purchase priced was provided by way of loan secured by mortgage over the premises. This loan was in the sum of $34,000. Monies were also expended on the purchasing costs and also to construct a rear patio cover for the house.
As detailed earlier, in about 1994, a Home Equity loan was obtained from the St George Building Society with a limit of $20,000. This loan was used, amongst other things, to purchase curtains and blinds for the home, an above ground swimming pool, lino and carpet, and a washing machine.
In 1997, the Wife's father paid for materials and carried out carpentry work in the kitchen. This carpentry work provided new benchtops and cupboards.
A gas heater was purchased for the Home in 1998 at a purchase price of $650. It was purchased under an arrangement whereby interest would not be charged on that purchase price if the amount were paid in full within six months of the date of purchase. The Wife established an account into which was paid funds towards the discharge of that purchase price within the nominated period. As at the date of separation, the balance of that account was $350. The Husband utilised those funds. The outstanding balance for the heater was not paid until February 1999 with the Wife making periodic payments towards the amount owing. The Husband discharged the balance of the amount owing for the Heater in or about February 1999.
The Husband continued to meet half the cost of the mortgage on the home for approximately twelve months after leaving the home.
I find that both the Husband and the Wife attended to such tasks as gardening and maintenance of the Home. This maintenance and conservation of the home included the matters to which I have referred to above as well as painting the exterior and loungeroom of the home, the installation of carpet, lino and vertical drapes, refurbishment of the bathroom and construction of fencing.
I accept the Husband's evidence that during the course of the marriage, he built a back verandah for the house, a retaining wall, established gardens, built a barbeque, installed two above ground pools, and erected fencing. I accept that the Husband provided the greater labour in this regard.
I find that since separation, the Wife has had to carry out or pay for repair to the home airconditioners, replacement of shadecloth and repainting of the bathroom. The Wife's father has repaired the rear door to the home.
Employment History
Husband
The Husband was made redundant from his employment at T in March 1988. He was then unemployed for about five months and the family relied upon Social Security benefits.
The Husband then obtained casual employment at a service station. His income was not sufficient to avoid the mortgage payments falling into arrears.
In March 1989, the Husband obtained temporary employment as a boilermaker. He was injured in 1991 suffering a laceration to his left arm as a result of an accident in the course of his employment. He was then placed on compensation for about 6 or 8 weeks, returned to work and was then retrenched after a further 4 weeks.
The Husband then worked on a casual basis for various companies in the following 12 months.
In 1992, the Husband gained permanent employment as a boilermaker with P&H Industries near S. He remained in this employment until April 2000.
It is the Husband's evidence that he ceased that employment because of the distance he was then living from his place of employment. At that time he had commenced a relationship with another person and was living at her home in M. His new residential location meant that he had to travel 110 kilometres return each day.
As a result of the change of employment, the Husband's net income dropped from $460 per week to $355 per week.
I also accept that the Husband has contributed as a home-maker and parent, although I find that the Wife was the principal care-giver to the children.
Wife
Other than employment with the Wife's parents as referred to earlier, the Wife worked on a part-time casual basis as a waitress at the D Hotel. She also did ironing during the course of the marriage.
Other than this, the Wife was employed throughout the marriage as home-maker and primary carer for the children. I accept that the Wife carried out volunteer work at the Children's school both in the school canteen and as a teacher's assistant. This involvement in the children's school involved attendances at that school several times per week.
Contributions of the parties
I now turn to the factors to which the Court is referred by section 79(4) of the Family Law Act.
I note that this is a marriage of long duration. I note that neither party brought property of appreciable value to the marriage.
It appears conceded, and I so find, that the Husband was the major income earner and the party who made the major financial contribution to the acquisition, conservation and improvement of the assets of the marriage. It was he who was employed throughout the marriage other than for the short periods referred to above.
The Wife worked for only very short periods in the course of the marriage. I find, on balance, that the indirect contribution made by the Wife's parents in the early days of the marriage were intended to be, at least in part, compensation to the parties for the efforts made by them in the business operated by the Wife's parents and for which they received less than adequate payment.
The Husband also played the major role in improving and conserving the major asset, that of the matrimonial home. It was he who did the majority of the painting, establishing of the gardens, construction of fencing and construction of the back verandah.
I do note, however, the efforts made by the Wife's father in renovating parts of the matrimonial home and find that this constitutes a non-financial contribution made on her behalf to the conservation of the property of the parties.
The Wife has also made a further contribution to the conservation of the major asset, being the home, in that she has financed the carrying out of various repairs to the home since the date of separation. Her father has made a non-financial contribution in that regard also.
I also find that it was the Wife who was the primary carer for the children and primary home-maker. It is clear that she adopted the major role in relation to the care and nurturing of the children. It was she who played the greater role in their schooling. She also contributed in a not insubstantial way to the various improvements made to the matrimonial home. Further, since the date of separation, it is she who has had to carry out the entire task within the household as home-maker and parent. There has been no contribution in that regard by the father.
If one has regard to the contributions made by the parties in their own respective capacities as detailed above, it is clear that the parties have made what can only be described as an equal contribution with regard to the factors referred to in section 79(4)(a), (b) and (c).
I turn now to the factors referred to in the balance of s. 79(4) and section 75(2) of the Act.
As to s.79(4)(d), I find that the making of the orders sought by either party will not have any impact upon the earning capacity of either party. If the Wife is successful, it will enable her to remain in the former matrimonial home with the children and continue her role as parent. If the father is successful, there is no evidence before me that his earning capacity would be affected in any way.
As to s.79(4)(f), there are no other orders made under the Family Law Act affecting a party to the marriage or a child of the marriage. I do note, however, the financial burden placed upon the father by the distance that must be travelled by him when exercising contact with the children.
I also note the Child Support which has been paid by the Husband and will continue to be paid albeit at a lower rate than prior to his voluntary alteration in employment circumstances. I accept the Wife's submission that this voluntary change in circumstance has caused a reduction in the funds available in the children's household and has forced the sale of the only motor vehicle owned by the Wife.
Section 75(2) factors
As to s.75(2)(a) I note that in broad terms both the Husband and the Wife are healthy. The Wife is to undertake some exploratory treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding and also suffers from stress.
The Husband is in "reasonable health" but does have restrictions on movement of his left arm. This has not hindered his employment.
As to s.75(2)(b), I note that the Wife has no income other than for Child Support payments and sole parent pension. The Wife has no resources other than the property referred to in the course of these proceedings. She has no superannuation other than a small policy valued at $800 which was revealed to her in the course of the proceedings. She is not residing with any other adult. The children have no income or resources of their own.
The Wife is fit for employment but has not been employed for many years given her role as home-maker and parent.
The Husband is fit for employment and, indeed, is employed. It is probably the case that if desired he could find employment that would give him a greater remuneration than that currently received by him. He resigned from his former employment because of the distance required for him to travel to and from his place of employment consequent upon him relocating.
The Husband does have the resource constituted by his preserved superannuation entitlements referred to in these reasons.
As to s.75(2)(c), I note that the Wife has the care and control of the children of the marriage who are under the age of eighteen years.
Whilst the Husband does cohabit with his fiance, he does not have a duty to maintain her or her children, although I do note that his income is the only income for the household and the father of his fiancee's children does not pay child support.
As to s.75(2)(f), I note the sole parent pension received by the wife and the level at which it is paid.
If the orders sought by the Wife were to be granted, I find that the standard of living that would result would be reasonable. Indeed, the Wife and the children would simply continue to reside in the former matrimonial home. It would appear that the Husband's current situation would not change from that in existence now. He would continue to reside in the home of his fiancee and continue to contribute to that household as its only income earner.
If however, the orders sought by the husband were to be granted, the former matrimonial home would be sold and the proceeds distributed. The value of the home is only $74,000. There is only equity of approximately $28,000. From this would be deducted sale costs and purchase costs if the Wife were able to purchase another home for her and the children. It is difficult to conclude other than that the living standards of the Wife and the children would deteriorate substantially if this were to occur. The funds, which would flow to the Husband, would make little difference to his standard of living.
It is appropriate to take into account the need to protect the role of the Wife who desires to continue her role as parent.
Having regard to each of these factors it is appropriate that the property distribution to the wife be adjusted so that she receives an additional 15%.
Conclusion
I note that it is the common position of each of the parties that each party should retain all property currently in the possession of each. The contest is as to the future of the former matrimonial home.
The Wife seeks to retain the home and its encumbrances so that the Wife and the children can continue to reside there.
The Husband wishes to have it sold and the funds distributed between the parties after payment of encumbrances and expenses. This would leave very little to be distributed.
The Wife has retained almost all of the household possessions. The Husband has received the benefits of the compensation payments. The Husband took the car at separation and sold that, on his evidence, for $1500. Those funds have also been dissipated. Taking into account the funds from the sale of the motor vehicle and his dissipated compensation payment, the Husband has received the benefit of $11,540.
I do not bring to account the sum of $350.00 taken by the Husband at separation. That fund was used for reasonable living expenses. The Husband is entitled to 35% of the net property. This is equivalent to $12,099.
The Husband should receive a further sum of $559 if the Wife retains the home and all the debts to which I have referred. It is clearly inappropriate for the home to be sold and an appropriate orders which are just and equitable in all the circumstances are:
(1)That the Wife pay to the Husband the sum of $559
(2)That within 28 days of the payment of the sum referred to in Order 1 that the Husband and Wife do all acts and things to transfer to the Wife absolutely all the Husband’s interest in the property situate at and known as 120 H Street, A in the State of New South Wales being the property more particularly described in folio identifier 11/A/4748 (“the home”).
(3)That contemporaneously with the aforesaid transfer, the Wife do all reasonable acts and things to discharge both the mortgage in favour of St George secured against the title to the home and discharge the St George Home Loan Plus account and/or otherwise indemnify the Husband absolutely for all liability under the said mortgage and the said loan.
(4)That subject to the above each party shall be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all property and chattels of whatsoever nature and kind in the possession of such party as at the date of these Orders and that for such purpose bank accounts are deemed to be in possession of the person whose name appears on the bank’s record thereof, insurance policies are deemed to be in the possession of the beneficiary thereof and superannuation entitlements are deemed to be in possession of the person who is named as the worker whose age or working future provides the conditions for payment out of such entitlements.
(5)That subject to the above each party shall indemnify the other for any liability attaching to any property, whether that be realty or personalty to be retained by the party.
(6)That the Husband and Wife do all acts and things and give all consents and execute all documents and writings necessary to give effect to the Orders made herein.
(7)That in the event that either party refuses or neglects to execute any deed or instrument, the Registrar of the Court is hereby appointed pursuant to Section 84 to execute such deed or instrument in the name of such party and to do all acts and things necessary to give validity to the operation of the deed or instrument.
I certify that the preceding eighty-nine (89) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Donald FM
Associate:
Date:
0
0
0