JANESE & SALIDA

In the matter of *Janese & Salida*, Judge Burchardt of the Family Court of Australia considered a property dispute between a husband and wife. The primary asset in contention was the matrimonial home, acquired in 2003. The parties' relationship commenced in 2002 and concluded in 2015. The wife remained in the home with their two sons, aged 15 and 10, the elder of whom has autism, and who spent limited time with the husband. The husband had provided a substantial deposit for the matrimonial home.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the matrimonial home, considering the contributions of each party and their future needs. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the wife had "squirrelled away" funds as alleged by the husband, and the extent of financial assistance provided by the wife's mother. The court also had to consider the future needs of both parties, particularly in light of the children's living arrangements.

Judge Burchardt reasoned that the husband's contribution to the matrimonial home was substantial, and that while the wife's mother had provided assistance, it was not as significant as asserted. Applying the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), the court assessed the contributions of the parties as 55% in favour of the husband and 45% in favour of the wife. The court found that the future needs of both parties were equal in all the circumstances.

The court ordered that the matrimonial home be valued. The wife was to pay the husband 55% of the net equity in the property within 75 days, and contemporaneously, the property was to be transferred to the wife. If the payment and refinancing were not completed by the deadline, the property was to be sold, with the proceeds applied first to sale costs, then to discharge the mortgage, and finally to satisfy the outstanding payment to the husband with interest. Pending payment or sale, the wife was granted sole occupation of the property, responsible for mortgage instalments and outgoings. Other assets were to be divided equally, with each party retaining their superannuation and personal possessions.