Kalnins & Vollis

Case [2023] FedCFamC2F 159


FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Kalnins & Vollis [2023] FedCFamC2F 159

File number(s): PAC 2389 of 2021
Judgment of: JUDGE STREET
Date of judgment: 17 February 2023 
Catchwords:  FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – whether there was a de facto relationship – de facto relationship commenced 2007 and continued until December 2020 – property adjustment – just and equitable – orders for sale and division of relevant property
Legislation:  Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) pt VIIIAB; ss 4AA, 44(6), 75(2), 90RD, 90RG, 90SB, 90SF, 90SF(3), 90SK, 90SM, 90SM(3), 90SM(4)(a)-(c)
Cases cited:

Estate of Gardner [2019] NSWSC 1324

Fairbairn & Radecki [2002] HCA 18

Fitzmaurice & Woolridge[2020] FamCAFC 64

Hickey and Hickey and Attorney-General (Cth) (Intervener) [2003] FamCA 395

Piras v Egan [2008] NSWCA 59

Radecki v Fairbairn [2020] FamCAFC 307

Stanford & Stanford (2012) 247 CLR 108

Division: Division 2 Family Law
Number of paragraphs: 95
Date of last submissions: 9 December 2022
Date of hearing: 17 and 18 November 2022 
Place: Parramatta
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms S Abdelraheem
Solicitor for the Applicant: Khalil Family Lawyers Pty Ltd
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L Reeves
Solicitor for the Respondent: Phillip A Wilkins & Associates

ORDERS

PAC 2389 of 2021

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

MS KALNINS

Applicant

AND:

MR VOLLIS

Respondent

order made by:

JUDGE STREET

DATE OF ORDER:

17 February 2023

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Pursuant to s 90RD of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the Court declares that the Applicant and Respondent were in a de facto relationship from 2007 to December 2020.

2.Pursuant to s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), the de facto husband forthwith take all necessary steps and execute all necessary documents to cause the property situated at B Street, Suburb C (“B Street, Suburb C property”) to be sold by private treaty at the earliest possible date at a price to be agreed on between the parties, and failing such agreement the price be determined by the proper officer of the Real Estate Institute or their nominee, and that the proceeds of the sale be disbursed as follows:

(a)Payment of agent’s commission, advertising expenses and legal expenses of the sale;

(b)Payment of any money due and owing to the mortgagee;

(c)The net balance to be divided between the parties as follows:

(i)63.5% to the de facto wife; and

(ii)36.5% to the de facto husband.

3.That in the event the B Street, Suburb C property fails to be sold by private treaty within a period of 3 months hereof, then each party take all necessary steps and execute all necessary documents to cause the said property to be sold by auction at the earliest possible date at a reserve to be agreed upon between the parties and failing such agreement to be determined by the proper officer of the Real Estate Institute or their nominee, and that the proceeds of the said sale be disbursed as follows:

(a)Payment of agent’s commission,…

Continue reading Kalnins & Vollis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kalnins & Vollis [2023] FedCFamC2F 159
Case
[2023] FedCFamC2F 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kalnins & Vollis, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) determined the existence of a de facto relationship between the parties and ordered a division of property. The Court found that the parties had been in a de facto relationship from 2007 until December 2020, and ordered the sale of a property at B Street, Suburb C NSW, with the net proceeds to be divided between the parties. The Court accepted the applicant's evidence that the de facto relationship began in 2007, and found the respondent to be an unsatisfactory and unreliable witness. The Court ordered the applicant to receive 63.5% of the net sale proceeds of the property, amounting to approximately $539,750, while the respondent was to receive 36.5% of the net sale proceeds, amounting to approximately $310,250. The Court took into account the financial and non-financial contributions made by both parties, as well as the other relevant factors outlined in the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), in determining the just and equitable division of property. The Court also made orders giving flexibility to the parties as to the method of sale and to ensure standard terms of settlement to be effected through the vendor's solicitor via Company U.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.