Felice and Felice - [2013] FamCA 641

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FELICE & FELICE

[2013] FamCA 641

FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where the parties’ contributions over the course of a long marriage is the focus of the enquiry of the property settlement – Where there was a lack of disclosure by the husband – Add backs – Where legal fees are added back – Proceeds of sale of the properties sold by the parties – Where the wife’s inheritances are included in the add backs on the balance sheet – Consideration of Stanford v Stanford (2012) 87 ALJR 74; 293 ALR 70 and Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116 – Where the financial contributions are equal with the husband making the greater non-financial contribution and that the wife making the greater contribution as parent and homemaker – Where there is a 5 per cent adjustment in favour of the husband – Where it is just and equitable disburse to the wife 60 per cent of the moneys held in the parties’ controlled moneys account and the balance to the husband.

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75 & 79

Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Black and Kelner (1992) FLC 92-287
Hickey & Hickey & Attorney-General for the Commonwealth of Australia [2003] FamCA 395; (2003) FLC 93-143; (2003) 30 Fam LR 355
In the Marriage of Coghlan (2004) 33 Fam LR 414
In the Marriage of Ferraro (1992) 16 Fam LR 1
In the Marriage of Lenehan (1987) 11 Fam LR 615
In the Marriage of Omacini (2005) 33 Fam LR 134
In the Marriage of Norbis (1986) 10 Fam LR 819; FLC 91-712
In the Marriage of Shewring (1987) l2 Fam LR 139
In the Marriage of Zyk (1995) 19 Fam LR 797
M & M [2006] FamCA 868; (2007) 36 Fam LR 97
Norman & Norman [2010] FamCAFC 66 at [60]
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 87 ALJR 74; 293 ALR 70
Mallett v Mallett (1984) 9 Fam LR 449
In the Marriage of Shewring (1987) 12 Fam LR 139

APPLICANT:

Ms Felice

RESPONDENT:

Mr Felice

FILE NUMBER:

SYC

3491

2008

DATE DELIVERED:

29 August 2013

PLACE DELIVERED:

Sydney

JUDGMENT OF:

Justice Loughnan

PLACE HEARD: Sydney

HEARING DATE:

24, 25 & 26 November 2010, 13 June 2013

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT WIFE:	Mr S Thomas
SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT:	The Norton Law Group

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT HUSBAND:	Mr T Hodgson
SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT:	Julie Singleton Lawyers

Orders

The parties shall forthwith do all acts and things, and sign all deeds, instruments and writings necessary to authorise Allars Motte Hannaford, Solicitors, to disburse the funds held in the controlled moneys account on behalf of the parties, in the proportions 60 per cent to the wife and the balance to the husband.
Otherwise each of the parties is declared to have the sole right, title and interest in all other real and personal property in their possession, custody or control at the date of these Orders and for this…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Felice and Felice

Details

AGLC: Felice and Felice [2013] FamCA 641
Case: [2013] FamCA 641
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Family Court of Australia considered a property settlement dispute between Ms Felice (the wife) and Mr Felice (the husband) following a 17-year marriage. The wife sought orders for property division, with her proposed orders varying depending on the assessed value of the asset pool, which included her inheritances. The husband also sought orders for property settlement, including a lump sum payment to the wife and the assignment of interests in various properties and superannuation entitlements.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' assets and liabilities, taking into account their contributions over the course of the marriage. Key issues included the valuation of certain assets, the husband's lack of full financial disclosure, and whether certain legal fees and the wife's inheritances should be included as "add backs" to the asset pool. The court also had to consider the principles established in cases such as *Stanford v Stanford* and *Bevan & Bevan* when assessing contributions and making adjustments.

In its reasoning, the court found that the parties' financial contributions were equal, but the husband had made greater non-financial contributions, while the wife had made greater contributions as a parent and homemaker. The court also addressed the husband's lack of disclosure and the inclusion of the wife's inheritances and legal fees in the asset pool. Ultimately, the court ordered a 5% adjustment in favour of the husband, resulting in the wife receiving 60% of the moneys held in the parties' controlled moneys account, with the balance to the husband.

The final orders directed the parties to take all necessary steps to disburse the funds held in the controlled moneys account in the specified proportions. Each party was declared to have sole right, title, and interest in all other real and personal property in their possession, custody, or control. Liberty was granted to either party to relist the matter within 28 days for clarification of the orders.

Orders