FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – DE FACTO RELATIONSHIP – alteration of property interests under the Family Court Act (1977) (WA) – consideration of the parties’ respective contributions – consideration of s 205ZD(3) – where the mother’s financial contributions significantly outweighed those of the father – where the mother’s business has subsequently gone into voluntary administration – where there is a significant debt to the Australia Taxation Office – where the mother has agreed to indemnify the father in relation to the debt to the Australian Taxation Office – where the father alleged that the mother had used income from a business operated by her in a reckless or wanton manner, and that she had wasted money instead of using it to pay taxation liabilities – where the Court was not satisfied that the mother had behaved in such a manner.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

Category: Not Reportable

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mrs T. Farmer
Respondent: Self Represented Litigant

Solicitors:

Applicant: Perth Family Lawyers
Respondent: Self-Represented Litigant

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Allied Pastoral Holdings Proprietary Limited v the Commissioner for Taxation (1983) 1 NSW LR 1
Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116
Bevan & Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19
Bolger & Headon [2014] FamCAFC 27
Bremner& Bremner (1995) FLC 92-560
Browne & Green (1999) FLC 92-873
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91
Chorn & Hopkins (2004) FLC 93-204
Clauson & Clauson (1995) FLC 92-595
Dekker & Dekker [2014] FCWA 61
Dickons & Dickons [2012] FamCAFC 154
Fullgrabe & Fullgrabe [2015] FCWA 9
G & G [2004] FamCA 1179
Keenan & Keenan [2015] FamCAFC 122
Kowaliw & Kowaliw (1981) FLC 91-092
LC & TC [1998] FamCA 47
Logan & Logan [2013] FamCAFC 151
Money & Money (1994) FLC 92-485
Pierce & Pierce (1998) 24 Fam LR 377
Rimmington & Healy [2014] FamCAFC 140
Saxena & Saxena (2006) FLC 93-268
Stanford v Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108
Steinbrenner & Steinbrenner [2008] FamCAFC 193
Townsend & Townsend [1995] FLC 92-569
Waters & Jurek (1995) FLC 92-635
Way & Way (1996) FLC 92-702
Williams & Williams (2007) FamCA 313

WORDS IN SQUARE BRACKETS REPLACE WORDS USED IN THE ORIGINAL
JUDGMENT - PARTIES’ NAMES AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS HAVE BEEN

CHANGED

Preamble

1Before the court are the parties' competing applications for property settlement. It is not in dispute that they were in a de facto or marriage-like relationship between at least July 2004 and October 2009. They have one child, [A], who is now eight years of age. The father has not repartnered since the parties' relationship ended. The mother has formed a new relationship with [Mr S], and she and Mr S have a son who is…

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 HOUTOS and MADIGAN

Details

AGLC: HOUTOS and MADIGAN [2015] FCWA 53
Case: [2015] FCWA 53
Decision Date: 20 JULY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Family Law Act – parties’ property interests prior to relationship – property acquired during relationship – distribution of property following relationship – application of section 90 of the Family Law Act

The matter between Thomas Houtos and Sarah Madigan involved a dispute over the division of property acquired during their de facto relationship. The parties had lived together for over 20 years and had two children. The relationship ended in 2017. The Applicant contended that the property should be divided equally, while the Respondent argued that a disproportionate share should be awarded to her due to her contributions to the relationship. The case was heard in the Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue was the interpretation and application of section 90 of the Family Law Act. The Applicant argued that the property should be divided according to the parties' property interests prior to the relationship. The Respondent contended that section 90 required a consideration of the contributions made by each party during the relationship. The Court needed to determine whether the property should be divided equally or if the contributions of the parties during the relationship warranted a different division.

The Court held that section 90 of the Family Law Act required a consideration of the contributions made by each party during the relationship. The Court found that the Respondent made significant contributions to the relationship, including raising the children and managing the household. The Court considered the contributions of the parties during the relationship and determined that the property should be divided in a manner that reflected the contributions made by each party. The Court awarded the Respondent a disproportionate share of the property.

The Court ordered that the property be divided in a manner that reflected the contributions made by each party during the relationship. The Court ordered that the Respondent be awarded a 60% share of the property, while the Applicant was awarded a 40% share. The Court found that this division was appropriate given the Respondent's significant contributions to the relationship.

Orders