HU & QIAN (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 2265

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HU & QIAN (No.2) [2015] FCCA 2265

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW − Whether husband has failed to disclose assets.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss.75(2), 79A, 106A

Hu & Qian [2015] FCCA 412
Chang and Su [2002] FamCA 156
Weir v Weir (1993) FLC 92-338; 16 Fam LR 154

Applicant: MS HU

Respondent: MS QIAN

File Number: DGC 1533 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Phipps

Hearing dates: 30 & 31 March & 1 April 2015

Date of Last Submission: 1 April 2015

Delivered at: Dandenong

Delivered on: 21 August 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Conlan

Solicitors for the Applicant: Belleli King

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Lowy

Solicitors for the Respondent: Anna Chen & Associates

ORDERS

1. That the husband sign all documents and do all things necessary to transfer to the wife all his right title and interest in the property situate at and known as Property O.

2. That the whole of the remaining net proceeds of sale of the (business omitted) at Property B be paid to the wife.

3. That the parties sign all documents and do all things necessary to sell the property at (omitted) China and upon sale the proceeds be divided as follows:

   (a)firstly in payment of the costs and expenses of the sale;

   (b)secondly in discharge of any encumbrances over the property;

   (c)by paying the balance 65% to the wife and 35% to the husband.

4. That upon the husband paying the wife the sums of $5,802, $2,901 and $5,802 a total of $14,505 being the total of the costs ordered to be paid by him on 16 March 2015, the wife do all things and sign all documents necessary to transfer any interest she has in (business omitted) Pty Ltd to the husband and resign any office she may hold in (business omitted) Pty Ltd.

5. That unless specified in these orders and save for the purposes of enforcing any monies due under these or any subsequent orders:

   (a)each party be solely entitled to the exclusion of the other to all other property (including choses in action) in the possession of such party as at the date of these orders (the furniture, personal possessions and the chattels in Property O being deemed to be in the possession of the wife);

   (b)each party be solely liable for and indemnify the other against any liability encumbering any item of property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders.

6. That in the event that the husband does not sign or execute any document which this order requires him to sign or execute within seven days of delivery of that document to him then a registrar of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia is appointed pursuant to s.106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to execute any such document in the name of the husband and do all things necessary to give validity to the operation of such document.

7. Otherwise all extant applications are dismissed.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Hu & Qian (No.2) is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DANDENONG

DGC 1533 of 2013

MS HU

Applicant

And

MS QIAN

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The parties apply for orders under s.79A of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The substantial assets are the former matrimonial home in Property O, office premises in Shanghai and the remaining proceeds of sale of a (business omitted) in Melbourne.

2. The husband carries on a business in China and in Australia, each through a corporate entity.  Issues include whether the husband has bank accounts or otherwise has assets or money in China and whether the businesses have any value.

3. Some explanation of the background is needed before looking at the parties’ proposals and the matrimonial assets and liabilities.

Background

1. The applicant wife was born in China on (omitted) 1958 and is now aged 57.  The respondent husband was born in China on (omitted) 1951 and is now aged 64.  The parties met in China in 1996 and married there on (omitted) 1997.  There is one child X born (omitted) 1997.  She lives with the wife and is completing year 12 this year.  She spends no time with her father.  The parties moved to Australia in 2006 and separated on 8 March 2013.

2. When the parties met, or shortly after, the wife was a (occupation omitted) at (employer omitted) and the husband was a (occupation omitted) in a (employer omitted) company.  In 1999 or 2000 the parties set up a business (business omitted) manufacturing (omitted).  The husband worked in the business initially and later the wife after she left her employment as a (occupation omitted).

3. The husband owned an apartment in Shanghai at the time of the marriage with a small mortgage.  By the time the parties moved to Australia they owned several properties.  They differ on the number, although it seems to have been four.  About the time they moved to Australia they sold some properties.  The husband says the proceeds of sale were about $600,000.  The properties left after the sale were an office in Shanghai. (omitted) and the apartment originally owned by the husband.

4. When they came to Australia they purchased a home at Property O for $700,000, using $300,000 of their savings and borrowing $400,000 from (omitted) Bank.  In July 2008 they purchased a (business omitted) for $240,000.  They incorporated or acquired a company, (omitted) Pty Ltd to operate the (business omitted).  Both parties worked in the (business omitted).

5. In August 2010 they sold the (business omitted) for $255,000 and purchased a (business omitted) at Property B for about $600,000.  They increased the mortgage over the matrimonial home and used funds from the wife’s bank account in China.  The wife appears to assert that the husband obtained those funds without her approval.  That does not appear to be the case but even if it was, it makes no difference now to the pool of assets and the assessment of contributions.

6. In 2005 the parties established (business omitted) in China which manufactured (omitted) products.  In 2012 (business omitted) was sold for $60,000.  The husband says that only 60% was sold.  He says the money was invested in the (omitted) business which has since gone bankrupt.  In the same year, 2012, the husband commenced importing goods from China through (omitted) Pty Ltd and selling them from the (business omitted).

7. In February 2013 (business omitted) was established in Shanghai.  The husband says the sole owner is an accountant employed in the business.  The wife says that the husband is for practical terms the owner.  The wife alleges that the husband is having an affair with this person.  Whatever the position, is does not affect this property proceeding, except perhaps credit.

8. The wife alleges that the assets and employees of (business omitted) have been transferred to the (business omitted).  The husband says that the latter company is a shell because it is necessary to have an appropriate authorised agent to export (omitted) products from China.  These matters are assertions only by each of the parties and again it does not affect the property proceedings between the parties.  There is a business in China manufacturing (omitted) products and with the ability to export.  This business is controlled by the husband.  He says it is bankrupt.  The wife, who has visited the premises, says it is a viable business.

9. The husband sold his apartment in China in October 2013 for $300,000.  He says he used the money to pay business debts.  He annexes to an affidavit five IOUs dated in 2010 and 2011 and documents best described as acknowledgement of repayment of those debts.  The wife disputes the authenticity of the IOUs.  She says the people named in them are employees of the husband’s business and would not have the money to lend.  Her case is that the husband should be treated as still having access to these funds.

10. When the parties first came to Australia the wife worked casually for a business (omitted business) run by her younger brother.  The younger brother transferred 48% of the shares in the company into the wife’s name.  Subsequently she transferred them back.  The wife says that no money changed hands for either transaction.  She says the original intention was acquisition for the purpose of business migration and when they realised it was going to work they bought the (business omitted).  They did not pay anything to the brother. The transfer of shares was in 2011 or 2012 and she has transferred them back.

11. The husband asserts that the shares were worth over $300,000.  Even if that is true, it makes no difference in this proceeding.  Nothing contradicts the wife’s evidence that no money was paid for the shares.  Indeed, to the extent to which the parties’ financial transactions are agreed, there was no source for any money for the shares.  The money the parties brought from China was used for the purchase of their house and the (business omitted).  I am able to safely conclude that the wife never had a beneficial interest in the shares in her brother’s business.

Assets and liabilities

1. Each party lists assets and liabilities in their respective outlines of the case.  Some are clearly not property.  The assets which are clearly property are these:

Asset	Husband	Wife
Property O (joint names)	1,050,000	1,050,000
Proceeds of sale of (business omitted) Property B	186,142	186,142
(property omitted) China	$478,000	$817,254
Toyota Corolla (wife’s vehicle)	8,000	2,000
Mazda CX5 (husband’s vehicle)	18,000	20,000
(omitted) motor vehicle in China	Not listed	24,536
(omitted) van in China	26,000	20,442
Household contents	50,000	8,000
(business omitted) Pty Ltd	Loss	Unknown
(business omitted)	Loss	Unknown
Stock in (business omitted) in China	not listed	Unknown
Stock in (business omitted) in Australia	Not listed	Unknown
(omitted) in China	not listed	5,250

1. The wife includes $30,000 held in her solicitor’s trust account for the purpose of continuing interest repayments on the former matrimonial home.  Since that is committed for a specific purpose, I will not include it as property.  She also includes as a liability outstanding payments on the mortgage but they should be covered by the $30,000.

2. Liabilities are:

Liability	Husband	Wife
(omitted) Bank mortgage	Unknown	765,623
(omitted) Pty Ltd debt to (omitted) company	142,300	Not listed
Loan from wife’s brother	10,000	Disputed
Outstanding school fees (to end 2015)	22,500	Not listed
Loan from applicant’s younger brother	Disputed	18,000
Loan from applicant’s family	Disputed	8,000
Rates and council fees	Not listed	4,500

1. The wife lists funds held in bank accounts by the husband in China and Australia as unknown.  The husband says none.  The wife alleges that the husband has failed to provide proper discovery and there are other grounds for assuming that he has funds in China or that he has not made proper disclosure.

2. The wife lists an amount of $7,875 held in a bank account received from VOCAT, a payment regarding breach of Intervention Order by the husband.  There is little if any evidence of this but in any event the Intervention Order was after separation and so these are not funds to which the husband has made any contribution.  I will not include them as an asset.

3. The wife puts the value of $5,109 on a retirement fund held in the husband’s name in China and a value of $5,109 on a retirement fund held in her name in China. Both appear to be values placed on pensions each party receives from China from their previous employment. The pensions are regular payments not lump sums and therefore not property for the purpose of s.79A.

4. The wife lists as an asset cash lent by her to the husband and never repaid, $306,559.  There is a loan agreement between husband and wife for some of this amount.  The husband acknowledges drawing money from the wife’s account.  He says some of this went to the business in China and paying off debts, employees and to purchase stock.  He says most of the money went towards the mortgage secured over the home.  On both the husband’s part and the wife’s much of their evidence is assertions.  Whether or not in the course of the marriage the parties treated it as a loan or series of loans by the wife to the husband the money cannot be treated as a matrimonial asset.  The source of repayment must be funds held by the husband and those funds, if they exist, are the matrimonial asset.  The money borrowed by the husband from the wife, if that is the proper way to look at it, is relevant to other issues not in determining the assets.  The lack of documentation by the husband for the disbursement of these monies Is part of the wife’s argument that the court should find that he has undisclosed assets.

5. The wife lists as an asset (omitted) in China, $5,250.  While the parties owned the (business omitted) they exported some (omitted) to China and some remains there in a (business omitted).  It has been there for a number of years.  There is no valuation apart from the assertion by the wife.  The probability is that it is unsaleable and so worthless but even so there is no admissible evidence of valuation.

6. The husband lists as an asset the amount of $96,000 the total of the pension in China paid to the wife up to August 2014.  This is not property.  The husband lists as an asset the pension of the wife.  This is the same amount which the wife lists and it is not property.  The husband also lists an amount of insurance in a fund in (omitted), $14,160.78.  This appears to be an insurance policy to which the wife is contributing for the daughter.  As best as I can discern from the evidence it has no present value and so is not property.

7. The husband lists funds held in bank accounts by the wife in China and in Australia as unknown.  There is no evidence that the wife does have any amounts other than small current amounts in bank accounts.

8. The loans from members of the wife’s family which she claims as debts appear to have come about after separation, although this is not clear.  None of these members of the family have sworn or affirmed affidavits. I will not include them as liabilities.

Proposals

1. The wife’s proposal is that she retain the assets in Australia and the husband be responsible for paying the mortgage over the matrimonial home.  The argument she puts is that the court should find that the husband has assets in China and income which he has not disclosed.

2. The husband’s proposal in his outline of case is that the assets be divided 60% to him 40% of the wife.  He proposes selling the property in Property O and in Shanghai.  At the hearing, his counsel suggested that because the wife has the care of the child the division should be somewhat in favour of the wife, but did not put a specific percentage.

Gambling

1. The husband alleges that the wife gambled large amounts of money over a period of years.  He alleges that she took the money from the (business omitted) takings, using the cash.  He says he matched the bank statement with turnover money (the account books), and it became evident that around $2,000-$3,000 was missing each week.  He says he estimates about $420,000 in losses over three years.  He says he would attend the (business omitted) and the wife would not be present.  He alleges she would disappear for hours with no explanation as to where she was.

2. The husband alleges that he eventually confronted the wife and she confessed to gambling $100,000 to $120,000 away.  The wife signed a document prepared in Chinese.  The English translation is headed “Letter of Guarantee” and reads:

   From now on all visits to Casino must have daughter’s approval, and if X disagree, that I firmly will not go to; and if I breach this guarantee then I shall leave home without taking any property. 

3. The document is dated 5 September 2012 and signed by the wife and by their daughter X.  The wife acknowledges signing the letter.  She said in her oral evidence that the husband forced her to sign it by pulling her hair and forcing her to the ground.  This does not appear in any affidavit.  She says the husband wanted her to sign it because he did not want her going alone while he was in China.

4. The wife denies that she lost large amounts of money gambling. She says that she and the husband used to go to the Casino and gamble together.  The husband produced a document which as best as I could gather from his evidence, was a record of takings over a relatively short period of time by the purchaser of the (business omitted).  He asserted that it showed that cash received into the business was missing but I could not understand how he asserted this document showed this.

5. The evidence about the wife’s gambling is assertion on the part of each party. There are serious issues about the husband’s credit, discussed below and indeed to a lesser degree the wife’s credit.  I am not satisfied that the wife gambled away the large amounts of money the  husband alleges, and certainly not satisfied that whatever gambling she did do, either with or without the husband, was such that it should be taken into account in assessing the division of assets.

Sale of (business omitted)

1. The husband alleges that an amount of $55,000 should be taken into account against the wife.  He alleges this arose because the (business omitted) could have been sold for a greater amount that it was.

2. On 25 July 2013, part of the orders by consent was that the husband and wife do all things necessary to sell the (business omitted).  This had not happened by 25 October 2013 and a further order was made that unless the parties could agree on terms and conditions and an agent then the property be sold by an agent nominated by the president of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. On 24 April 2014 a further order was made concerning the sale and then another order on 20 June 2014.

3. Both parties appointed agents and the property was eventually sold by the agent appointed by the wife after an auction on 22 August 2014.  The price was $560,000.  Email exchanges then followed between the wife’s solicitors and the husband’s agent concerning a proposed sale by the husband for $615,000.  The sale did not go ahead and the property was settled on the sale of $560,000.  A full description of this process of sale and what happened in relation to the husband’s agent is contained in my judgment in Hu & Qian [2015]FCCA 412.

4. The husband asserts that his purchasers were genuine purchasers and could have settled the sale.   I do not have to decide this point.  However the husband’s claim for some allowance against the wife is proposed.  A finding that the wife had acted unreasonably would be necessary.  I do not consider that the wife acted unreasonably.  Security for the (business omitted) included a mortgage over the property in Property O where the wife and child were living.  The loan was in default and the bank was threatening action.  An auction earlier in 2014 by an agent appointed by both parties was unsuccessful.  The history of repeated orders for the parties to sell shows that their ability to cooperate was limited.

5. I consider that in the circumstances the wife acted reasonably in proceeding unilaterally to conduct a sale notwithstanding protests which came from the husband’s solicitors that she could not do this.  Having sold the property after auction she acted reasonably in taking steps to have that sale brought to a conclusion rather than once again have uncertainty.

Credit

1. The wife’s case is that the husband should not be accepted as a credible witness.  He says his income is only $300 per week and that his business in China is bankrupt.  The wife’s case is that his evidence that he had IOUs which were paid by using the proceeds of sale of his apartment in China should not be accepted.  Nor should his evidence that the $300,000 he drew from the wife’s bank account has been spent on business expenses, loans and mortgage repayments.

1. The (omitted) business in China is still operating.  The wife has visited the premises and there is no dispute that it is still in business.  The husband acknowledges that a (omitted) Bank account in his name was credited with a total of $51,000 between 17 April 2013 and 17 July 2013.  In the account they are described as “global transfer”.  The individual amounts are for reasonably large round figure sums, for instance $3,000, $9,000 and $8,000 on 25,^, 26 and 27 February.  The account then shows amounts going out some to other accounts which appear controlled by the husband.

2. The husband says these amounts are loans so that he could conduct his business.  He does not say who made the loans and does not produce any documents.  He does not produce other bank statements or documents which show where the money went to.  His explanation is unconvincing.

3. The husband has travelled to China and back on a number of occasions.  His frequent-flyer record with China Air and his passport show this is the case.  The wife alleges that he travels business class but the records do not record the class.  The husband alleges he has an income of only $300 per week and bankrupt or failing businesses.  The amount of travel he has been doing is not consistent with this.

4. The parties applied for a bank loan when they purchased the (business omitted) in August 2011.  The loan was applied for through a mortgage broker.  In the loan application the wife is described as the “Primary Applicant” and the husband as the “Other Applicant”.  The husband says this is because he was too old to apply for the loan and so his wife did.

5. Under employment details the husband’s current occupation is given as “(omitted) – private industry” the wife’s occupation is given as “Home Duties”.  The name of the husband’s current employer is “(omitted) Ltd and the address given for it is in Shanghai. The husband says that it is the (omitted) company.

6. Under the provision for assets in the loan application document the total value of Property Assets is given as $2,635,000 and then divided evenly between each applicant.  The value for cash at bank is $463,143 for the primary applicant and $200,000 for the other applicant.  The primary applicant is listed as having $100,000 in “Shares/Unit Trust/Bonds/Debentures (cash value only)”.  Each party is listed as having a motor vehicle and the primary applicant has furniture and personal effects valued at $85,000.

7. The Primary applicant’s income is given as $15,532 per month and liabilities as $449,665.

8. The house at Property O is given an estimated market value of $1,350,000.

9. While the husband is described as the other Applicant the details of income and assets are for the Primary Applicant.  Clearly they are the husband’s details.

10. This document was in August 2011.  It is inconsistent with what the husband says the position was two years later.  It does not refer to the IOUs of 2010 and 2011.  If the husband was earning $15,532 per month and his only liability was $449,665, the business could not have been in the perilous state the husband alleges.  He now alleges that he had had to borrow something like $300,000 to keep the business going and this was prior to the loan agreement.  Either the statement is correct and the husband’s evidence in the hearing is not correct, or this statement is incorrect which reflects badly on the husband’s credit.  It reflects as well on the wife’s credit because she too signed the loan application.  What is important is that it casts doubt on what the husband says about the businesses in China which he now controls.

11. The husband says this was all filled in by the broker and since it is in English he could not read it.  The broker was not called to give evidence.  I find that the information on the loan application was given by perhaps the husband and wife together, but of particular relevance to credit, the husband.

12. The husband says that whatever businesses there are in China are bankrupt.  He has control of the businesses in China and the money he has been receiving from China and his travel to and from China suggests that his claim that his income is $300 per week is incorrect.  He gives no explanation for why an income of $15,532 per month in August 2011 should have decreased to a minimal amount at the time of separation in 2013.

13. The parties attempted to negotiate a settlement after separation.  A document was prepared in which the husband lists assets and liabilities.  He does not include the IOUs from China.

14. I am satisfied that when the husband sold his apartment in Shanghai yielding about $300,000 he did not have IOUs outstanding which extinguished that amount.  He does not have affidavits from the alleged lenders in China and does not explain why he does not.  He says that borrowing money from the business acquaintances by way of IOU is common.  I accept that may be the case but I am not satisfied that the loans existed.  I am not satisfied the money the husband drew from the wife’s bank account has been expended in the way the husband says.

Conclusions

1. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that the husband has assets which are not disclosed.  I am satisfied that the $300,000 proceeds of the sale of his apartment was not disposed of in the way he says, that is in satisfying the IOUs.  I am not satisfied that the money he drew from the wife’s bank account in China, perhaps as much as $300,000, was disposed of in the way he says.  This means that the husband’s claim that the business in China is bankrupt cannot be accepted.  It is an operating business and may have some value and the business in Australia may have some value too.

2. I cannot make a finding about what any undisclosed property the husband has in China or the value of that property.  I am satisfied that this is one of that “class of cases were the Court cannot be satisfied as to the extent of the property and can thus be less cautious than might otherwise be the position when making an order” – Chang and Su [2002] FamCA 156 at [59] Kay& Dawe JJ. Their Honours discussed a number of the authorities. They referred to Weir v Weir (1993) FLC 92-338; 16 Fam LR 154 at 79–593 where the Full Court (Nicholson CJ, Strauss and Nygh JJ) said:

   It seems to us that once it has been established that there has been a deliberate nondisclosure, which follows from his Honour’s findings in this case, then the Court should not be unduly cautious about making findings in favour of the innocent party.  To do otherwise might be thought to provide a charter for fraud in proceedings of this nature.

3. The significant assets about which there is no dispute of existence are the former matrimonial home at Property O and the office premises in Shanghai.  The parties do not agree on the value of the office premises.  The husband says that they are valued at $478,000 the wife at $817,254.  As I understand the parties’ proposals each proposes that the property be sold.  The husband proposes that the Property O property be sold but the wife wishes to retain it.

4. The difference between the values the parties place on the Shanghai property is substantial.  I cannot resolve it.  Correspondence annexed to affidavits shows that the solicitors for the parties had agreed on a Valuer in Shanghai but could not agree on the need for the Valuer to acknowledge that he had prepared the valuation in accordance with the Family Law Rules.  This issue was not resolved prior to the hearing and the valuation was not carried out.  It is unnecessary to decide which side was right in the dispute about whether the Valuer should be bound by the Family Law rules.  What is important is that there is no evidence of the valuation.

5. If the property was in Australia this solution would be to order its sale and the net proceeds divided.  I can order that the parties do all things necessary to sell the property in Shanghai but if they do not cooperate there is no way for enforcement of the order.  The history of events concerning the sale of the (business omitted) suggests lack of co-operation might happen.  Notwithstanding the difficulties the only solution is to order its sale.

6. In the parties’ final submissions they make common ground that the division of assets should be in favour of the wife because she has the care of the parties’ child X. Implicit in the submissions is that the parties contributions are equal and the adjustment under s.75(2) should favour the wife. In the absence of being able to make a finding about the parties’ assets assessing contributions is not possible but to the extent that the assets can be identified the parties’ contributions were equal. The husband had an apartment at the commencement of the marriage but both then had employment and both, to the extent can be determined from the evidence, worked in varying degrees in the parties’ businesses. The husband was absent for what appears to be quite substantial periods in China and so the wife had the greater care of the child.

7. There are issues about motor vehicles and the contents of the former matrimonial home. These do not need resolution.  They can remain with whoever has them.

8. The practicalities of the situation have to be taken into account.  The wife’s proposal that she receive the assets in Australia and the husband be ordered to pay the mortgage is not practical.  The husband is most unlikely to discharge the mortgage and in those circumstances the proposal does not satisfy the requirement for bringing the parties’ financial affairs to a conclusion.

9. The wife should receive the assets available in Australia which are the property in Property O and the proceeds of sale of the (business omitted).  That means she receives:

   Property O      1,050,000

   Less mortgage   765,623

   284,377

   Proceeds of sale       186,142            $   470,519

10. In addition the wife has already received $100,000 from the proceeds of sale of the (business omitted).  The parties agreed on an order that each should receive $100,000 from these proceeds.  This means that the wife retains the assets in Australia so she will receive $570,519.

11. The (business omitted) exists in Australia.  It may or may not have a value.  The husband controls it and it should be placed in his ownership and so too the businesses in China which may or may not have a value.

12. The factors under s.75(2) favour the wife having a greater share of the assets. The husband’s counsel puts this down to the wife having the care of the child. The wife is dependent upon social services payments. The husband says his income is $300 per week but I am satisfied that he is earning more. Both have some health problems but not so serious that it inhibits them functioning. The wife is 57 and the husband is 64.

13. Assuming that the husband has a reasonable income and some substantial assets but is approaching retirement an adjustment of 65% in favour of the wife is appropriate.

14. This does not resolve the question what the order should be.  Possibly the husband still has the benefit of the proceeds of the sale of his apartment in China, $300,000, and the amount transferred out of the wife’s account, possibly $300,000.  The business in China may have some value and so too the business in Australia.  He may have other assets.  In the loan application in August 2011 he said he had cash at bank $463,143 and $100,000 in “Shares/Unit Trust/Bonds/Debentures (cash value only)”.  If that was correct he has not explained what has happened if he no longer has them.  The husband may have $1 million in undisclosed assets; it may be more it may be less.

15. The wife’s proposal is that she receive the assets in Australia and the husband be ordered to pay the mortgage on the Property O property.  If I order that the wife receive 65% of the proceeds of sale of the Shanghai property and it sells for about $600,000 she will receive about $400,000 and so a total approaching $1 million.  The husband has already received $100,000 and if he has a further $400,000-$500,000 he will have received 35% of the assets.

16. I will order that the wife receive the whole of the Property O property and the whole of the remaining proceeds of sale of the (business omitted), that the Shanghai property be sold and the proceeds divided 65% to the wife 35% to the husband.  The result is just and equitable.

I certify that the preceding sixty-eight (68) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Phipps.

Associate: 

Date: 21 August 2015