HUTCHENS & LINDGREN

This matter concerned a property settlement dispute between parties who had been in a de facto relationship. The primary disputes revolved around the applicant's contributions during the relationship, the valuation of the respondent's businesses, and issues arising from the respondent's alleged lack of disclosure. The case was heard by Judge Mercuri.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of property between the parties, taking into account their respective contributions and financial resources. Key issues included assessing the value of the respondent's business interests and addressing the consequences of any non-disclosure by the respondent.

Judge Mercuri ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a sum of $56,740 within 60 days. In the event of non-payment, the real property located at Street A, Town B was to be sold out of court, with the proceeds applied first to sale costs, then to discharge any mortgage or encumbrances, followed by the outstanding payment to the applicant with interest, and any remaining balance to the respondent. Pending payment or sale, the respondent was granted sole occupation of the Street A, Town B property, with obligations to meet mortgage instalments and outgoings, and neither party was permitted to encumber the property without the other's written consent. The respondent was to retain, to his exclusion, his business interests, motor vehicles, caravan, motorcycle, bank accounts, superannuation, and personal belongings, and was solely liable for associated debts and liabilities. The applicant was to retain her property at Street E, Town F, her bank accounts, superannuation, and personal belongings, and was solely liable for associated debts. The parties were to otherwise retain their respective property, with joint bank accounts to be divided equally, and each party foregoing claims to the other's superannuation. The court noted that the orders were intended to finally determine the financial relationship between the parties.