Fadymacious & Fadymacious

In the matter of *Fadymacious & Fadymacious*, Coleman J considered a property settlement dispute between a husband and wife. The wife sought an adjustment in her favour regarding the division of matrimonial assets, including a property.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of property, considering the parties' respective contributions during the cohabitation and post-separation periods. Further, the court had to assess whether adjustments were warranted under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) due to disparities in earning capacity and the future burden of child care. The court also needed to account for outstanding child support arrears owed by the husband.

Coleman J found that the husband's capital contribution warranted only a minimal adjustment in favour of the wife for contributions made during the cohabitation. Post-separation contributions were deemed equal. However, the court determined that the husband's substantially greater earning capacity and the wife's greater burden for caring for the child over the next 12 months justified a section 75(2) adjustment in her favour. The husband's entitlement to the property settlement was also reduced by the lump sum of child support owing to the wife.

The orders provided for the wife to pay the husband a sum of $70,064 within three months, whereupon the husband was to transfer his interest in the P property to the wife, who would then indemnify him for all liabilities relating to it. If the wife failed to make this payment, the parties were to sell the P property, with the net proceeds divided 83 per cent to the wife and 17 per cent to the husband. Each party was to retain other property absolutely, and the wife was to indemnify the husband against any claims for child support arrears. Costs were reserved.