Furtado & Furtado

This case involved applications for interim property and spousal maintenance before the Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Ms. Furtado (the wife), and the respondent, Mr. Furtado (the husband), sought various orders concerning the former matrimonial home, child support, and spousal maintenance. The husband also sought the sale of the former matrimonial home on an interim basis.

The court was required to determine whether to grant interim orders for the sale of the former matrimonial home, and to assess the appropriate level of interim spousal maintenance and child support, considering the imminent trial date. Specifically, the court had to consider the husband's application for an immediate sale of the property, the wife's claims for mortgage payments, private health insurance, and a combined child and spousal maintenance payment, and the husband's financial capacity and the parties' historical standard of living, including private school fees.

Justice Murphy, in his reasoning, acknowledged the high threshold for ordering the sale of a matrimonial home on an interim basis, citing established Full Court authorities such as *Bearup & Bearup*. He found that the husband's concession that such an order was unusual and difficult to reverse was well-founded. While noting potential inconsistencies in the wife's stated intentions regarding relocation, the judge was not persuaded that it was tolerably certain that her desired outcome of retaining the home could not be achieved at trial, and therefore dismissed the application for an interim sale. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court applied the principles outlined in *Saxena & Saxena*, assessing the wife's capacity for self-support, her reasonable needs, the husband's capacity to pay, and the reasonableness of any order under section 75(2) of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The judge found the wife's current incapacity for remunerative employment, her reasonable needs (including the mortgage), and the husband's admitted capacity to pay were established.

The court ordered that the husband pay the minimum mortgage payments on the former matrimonial home and provide spousal maintenance and child support totalling $1007 per week, as well as private health insurance premiums for the wife. The husband's application for the sale of the home was dismissed, and the wife's amended application was otherwise dismissed. Costs were reserved for the trial judge.