Felice and Felice
Case
•
[2013] FamCA 641
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Felice and Felice [2013] FamCA 641
[2013] FamCA 641
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.
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.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Felice and Felice [2013] FamCA 641
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
M & M
[2006] FamCA 868
Hickey & Hickey
[2003] FamCA 395
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52