KELLY & KELLY
[2011] FamCA 388
•27 May 2011
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KELLY & KELLY | [2011] FamCA 388 |
| FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Contributions – husband was the primary income earner – husband earned income additional to salary through management of his share portfolio – husband had specialist skill and expertise in share investment – wife primarily responsible for the day to day care of children and household – wife supported the husband in his employment FAMILY LAW - PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Adjustments – husband responsible for care of children since separation – husband responsible for financial support of children – both parties have income earning capacity – wife’s capacity to earn income less than the husband – husband required to sell shares to purchase a home for children – capital gains tax liability – capital gains tax liability excluded from asset pool – adjustment for capital gains tax liability |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79(4) |
| IABH & HRBH [2010] FamCA Rosati v Rosati (1998) FLC 92-804 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Kelly |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Kelly |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 918 | Of | 2009 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 27 May 2011 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Newcastle |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Cleary J |
| HEARING DATE: | 15 & 16 December 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr T Hodgson |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Julie Singleton Solicitors |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr G Foster |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Delaney Lawyers |
Orders
That all prior orders for payments by the husband to the wife be discharged as and from the date at which each stands paid.
That for the purposes of this order “the fund” means the Corporation 1 Staff Superannuation Plan:
2.1That a base amount of $500,000 is allocated, as required by s 90MT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) to the wife out of the husband’s interest in the fund.
2.2That in accordance with paragraph s 90MT(1)(a) of the Act the wife is entitled to be paid the amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001; and the husband’s entitlement and the entitlement of such other person to whom a splittable payment may be made to payments out of the husband’s interest in the fund is correspondingly reduced.
2.3That the trustee of the fund (“the trustee”) shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to calculate, in accordance with the requirements of the Act and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 the wife’s entitlement created by order 2.2 hereof and pay to the wife her entitlement whenever the trustee makes a splittable payment out of the husband’s interest in the fund.
2.4That orders 2.1 to 2.3 have effect from the operative time and the operative time is 3 days after service of this order on the trustee.
2.5That after service of the payment split notice pursuant to r 7A.03 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994, the wife shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be necessary, including but not limited to, exercising her request pursuant to r 7A.06(1) of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 for the rollover or transfer of the transferable benefits out of the husband’s interest in the fund to a superannuation fund of the wife’s choosing in accordance with r 7A.12 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994.
2.6That the husband pay to the wife the sum of $847,355 within 42 days of the date of these orders.
That each party is declared the sole legal and beneficial owner of all items currently in his/her possession including but not limited to furniture, furnishings, jewellery, cash, motor vehicles, bank accounts and chattels.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Kelly & Kelly is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: (P)SYC918 of 2009
| Ms Kelly |
Applicant
And
| Mr Kelly |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Nature of proceedings
These are proceedings in which both financial and parenting orders are sought. The parenting aspect of the matter is in abeyance, while the parties and children engage in family therapy. Family therapy was a recommendation made by Ms T, family consultant, in her report released in December 2010. There are three children of this marriage, two of whom are under the age of 18 years. Ms A the eldest is aged 20. The two younger children are B and E aged 16 and 14 respectively at the date of hearing. The younger children have been living with their father since their mother moved out of the family home towards the end of 2009. Both parents agree that they should continue to do so.
The live issue is how much time the children spend with their mother and the wisdom of any orders being made in relation to that issue. The parenting aspect has been referred to a Registrar of this Court to be relisted if necessary after the conclusion of the family therapy. Accordingly, the only matter before the Court was the resolution of a property dispute between the parties.
History of the matter
The applicant wife, Ms Kelly (“the wife”) was born in Melanesia in 1959 and was 51 years of age at the date of hearing. The respondent husband, Mr Kelly (“the husband”) was born in Australia in 1957 and was 53 years of age at the date of hearing.
The parties disagree about when they began living together. The wife says February 1984, the husband says the second half of 1985. In a marriage of more than 20 years, the division of property does not turn on this difference. However, for reasons I will make clearer in the following paragraphs, I consider cohabitation was more likely to have commenced in the second half of 1985.
Employment and financial circumstances of the parties when they began living together
The wife has a Bachelor’s degree from University 1, apparently completed in 1982. She went on to study toward a further Bachelor’s degree at the same university. The wife says this[1]:
When we commenced cohabitation in February 1984, we resided in a rental apartment in [R Street, Sydney Suburb 1]. I was [studying toward a further Bachelor’s degree] and I attended [University 1]. I worked part-time at [Company 1 in Sydney].
[1] Wife’s affidavit sworn 28 October 2010, par 31
The husband says this[2]:
At the time of cohabitation the wife was [studying toward a further Bachelor’s degree] at [University 1]. She had graduated with a [Bachelor’s degree] from [University 1] in 1982. She studied [toward a further Bachelor’s degree] at [University 1] until she was excluded in 1985 due to repeated failure. The wife transferred to [University 2] in the second semester of 1985 and commenced working part-time at [Company 1] sometime during this semester.
These statements are supported by documents in exhibit ‘…’ to the husband’s affidavit.
[2] Husband’s affidavit sworn 1 October 2010, par 6
The wife in her affidavit makes no reference to having attended University 2. She says this: (par 32)
I passed my first year however, I did not complete my [studies toward a further Bachelor’s degree] due to my commitments with our relationship. I deferred completing my degree and shortly thereafter the husband was transferred to Melbourne. To date I have not returned to complete my studies as I had planned to do.
The documents reveal that the wife attended University 2, enrolled in studies toward a further Bachelor’s degree in 1985, 1986 and 1987 and was notified of her exclusion from the degree in February 1988. In a resume and employment history for the wife,[3] the wife refers to herself as having attended the University 2 without reference to dates and to having commenced employment with Company 1 in 1985.
[3] Husband’s affidavit, ‘…’ tab 3
The fact of the matter is then that the wife was a university student from 1979 to 1987 inclusive and ceased her studies by exclusion, not by choice. In this matter the evidence of the husband, both oral and documentary, gave an accurate picture of the circumstances of the parties. The husband appears to have been a meticulous record keeper. I found him to be scrupulously truthful in the witness box. The combination of these two elements has enabled me to feel considerable confidence in relying on the evidence of the husband. The wife was more inclined to omit or minimise matters which she perceived to be unhelpful to her. Accordingly I have less confidence in the accuracy of the evidence of the wife.
The wife had no assets at the commencement of cohabitation.
At the commencement of cohabitation the husband was employed at Corporation 1 as an assistant manager. He owned various assets including 13 shares in B Pty Ltd, 1976 motor vehicle, a television, stereo system and other household furnishings and personal effects.
History of the marriage
When the parties began living together in 1985 the husband had recently completed business studies at University 1. After six months he was promoted to a managerial position in a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporation 1, namely P Limited. His salary increased at that time from $25,000 to a $40,000 package[4]. The husband continued to be promoted through Corporation 1 and its associated entities.
[4] Husband’s affidavit Mr Kelly sworn 1 October 2010, par 4 and ‘…’ Tab 2, p 5
As a result of the husband’s employment, the husband received 453,000 options in Corporation 1 shares. These options vested at various dates upon the husband meeting certain performance hurdles.
In September 1986 the parties purchased a property at M Street Sydney Suburb 2 for $95,000. Again, the documents[5] support the husband’s assertion in relation to the time of purchase and amount of loan. The wife asserts that the property was purchased in 1984 and that she was at that time “working fulltime as a [clerk] whilst studying [toward a further Bachelor’s degree]”. The wife’s own resume as previously mentioned, states that she commenced working as a part-time clerk in the second semester of 1985. I accept the husband’s evidence in relation to this purchase.
[5] Husband’s affidavit sworn 1 October 2010, ‘…’ Tab 10
The parties married in 1986.
At the conclusion of 1987 the wife ceased her studies at University 2 and was excluded from resumption.
In July 1989 the parties purchased a property at B Street, Sydney Suburb 3 for $305,000. They were unable to sell the Sydney Suburb 2 property and obtained a bridging loan from the husband’s employer.
In September 1989 the Sydney Suburb 2 property was sold for $172,000. The proceeds of sale were used to repay the bridging loan. Again the documents annexed to the husband’s affidavit support this version of events.
In or about September 1989 the husband was transferred to the Melbourne headquarters of Corporation 1. The parties relocated to Melbourne. The wife ceased her employment with Company 2 and commenced work for Company 3 as a clerk. The wife apparently had an intention to take up studies toward a further Bachelor’s degree at Melbourne University. She had the written support of her employer and a senior judicial officer in Melanesia for doing so. There is no evidence to suggest that these studies were undertaken. The parties’ property in Sydney Suburb 3 was rented out and accommodation in Melbourne was provided by the husband’s employer.
In August 1990 the parties’ first child Ms A was born. The wife provided fulltime care for her.
In approximately mid 1992, the wife returned to paid work and applied her income to family expenses. Ms A attended day care whilst her parents were working. The parties also employed a nanny for Ms A.
In October 1993 the husband was transferred back to Sydney by his employer. By that time the wife was pregnant with the parties’ second child. Renovations were undertaken on the parties’ Sydney Suburb 3 property and accommodation was provided by the husband’s employer during this period of weeks.
In April 1994 the parties’ second child, B was born. The parties agreed two months prior to the birth of B when the wife gave up work, that she would cease paid employment and thereafter devote herself on a fulltime basis to caring for the children and running the home. The wife has not been in paid employment since. It is uncontested that the wife was an attentive and devoted mother, ran the household with some domestic assistance (cleaning) and was especially committed to providing creative and nutritious meals for the family.
In September 1996 the parties’ third child E was born.
In or about April 1998 the parties sold the Sydney Suburb 3 property for $670,000, deferring settlement until late September in that year. The mortgage was effectively paid off. The parties rented for eight months while searching for a new property.
In May 1999 the parties purchased a property at N Street, Sydney Suburb 4. The purchase price was apparently $1,740,000.
In or about 2004 the parties began developing plans for renovating the Sydney Suburb 4 property. In or about 2007 that work commenced.
The year 2007 was a turning point for the parties in every way. The husband accepted voluntary redundancy from Corporation 1. The Sydney Suburb 4 property was renovated at a cost of approximately $1,750,000. This renovation was financed by the conversion of 35,000 options issued to the husband by Corporation 1. The conversion of these options raised sufficient funds to pay for the proposed renovations and the relevant tax payable on the conversion of those options. The financial position of the parties was such that there was no financial need for the husband to continue in paid employment. In fact, he formed his own company, Company 4 and worked largely from an office in Sydney. At this time, strains became evident in the relationship of the parties. The wife began spending less time in the home and was less engaged by the domestic tasks she had undertaken for the previous 22 years.
In 2008 there was turmoil and emotional distress in the household for both parties and all of the children, particularly Ms A. The wife assisted Ms A through her HSC year in 2008 and I accept that was a commitment by the wife at a time when her preference might have been to be elsewhere.
By November 2008 the marriage had broken down and the parties separated about one month later. There were a series of confrontations between the parties and between the children and their mother, which sadly led to police involvement by the end of that year. The children’s relationship with their mother has sadly deteriorated since then.
In February 2009 the wife filed an application in the Family Court. On 31 March 2009, orders were made by consent; providing for:
a)Sale of the Sydney Suburb 4 property (order 2.1).
b)The leasing of a three bedroom house/apartment by the husband within five kilometres of the Sydney Suburb 4 property with the husband to be responsible for payment of all rent and any bond (order 2.2).
c)Either party to have the right to occupy the leased house or apartment (order 3B).
On 20 May 2009 orders were made:
a)For the wife to notify the husband’s solicitors of her requirements for accommodation and family support (order 2).
b)For the wife to vacate the Sydney Suburb 4 property within seven days of satisfactory accommodation being arranged for her (order 1).
On 7 July 2009 the husband provided $2,000 to the wife for her return airfare to Melanesia.
On 12 August 2009 orders were made:
a)In specific terms for the sale of the Sydney Suburb 4 property (orders 1 to 4).
b)Partial property settlement of $1 million to each party from the proceeds of sale (order 5).
By 4 November 2009 the Sydney Suburb 4 property still had not been sold. The parties were living separately in the home. Orders were made by consent, including:
a)That the husband pay to the wife (order 1):
(i)$90,000 for furniture;
(ii)$70,000 interim costs; and
(iii)transfer the Mercedes Benz vehicle (order 12); and
with such payments to be categorised as partial property settlement (orders 2 and 12)
b)That the husband also pay to the wife
(i)$1,500 per week (order 1(v));
(ii)$2,500 per week to be used in total or part to pay rent (order 3); and
(iii) the requisite rental bond for a property of up to $2,500 per week rental (order 4).
With such payments to be categorised as partial property settlement or interim spousal maintenance (order 6).
c)That the husband have exclusive occupation of the Sydney Suburb 4 property from 17 November 2009 with the children remaining in the home (orders 8, 18 and 19).
On 11 December 2009 contracts were exchanged for the sale of the Sydney Suburb 4 property for $5,380,000.
Settlement of the sale took place on 10 February 2010. Pursuant to the earlier orders, each party received $1 million. The husband used $925,000 of his $1 million to reduce a margin loan held with BT,[6] reserving the balance for family expenses. The wife during cross-examination said she had committed to the purchase of a property in Melanesia for $1 million. After payment of some agreed expenses associated with the Sydney Suburb 4 property, the balance of the proceeds, being $1,632,162.79, was reduced to $1,604,730.07. That amount was deposited into an interest bearing account. Accrued interest brought the balance of the account to $1,627,944.
[6] Husband’s affidavit sworn 1 October 2010, par 42 and ‘…’ Tab 18, page 234
There were a series of interim distribution of assets, most significantly from the sale of the home, which are reflected in a joint balance sheet as add backs (‘HW1’).
Since January 2010 the husband and the two younger children have been living in rented accommodation in the Sydney Suburb 4 area and Ms A has returned to stay during university holidays from time to time. The wife lived in rented accommodation in the area.
On 29 January 2010 the husband ceased paying spousal maintenance and rental in the combined sum of $4,000 as ordered on 4 November 2009.
On 31 August 2010 the parties entered into further orders by consent, which provided for the release of the funds in the interest bearing account to the parties. Of the $1,627,944 in that account, the wife received $1,250,000[7] and the husband received the balance, and applied it to the credit of the BT margin loan[8]. The Court noted at that time the amount of $128,000 of $1,250,000 related to asserted arrears in relation to orders 1(v) and 3 of the terms of settlement up to 3 September 2010[9]. The balance of the amount received by the wife, being $1,122,000, was by way of partial property settlement[10].
[7] Order 1, 31 August 2010
[8] Order 1A, 31 August 2010
[9] Order 2, 31 August 2010
[10] Order 3, 31 August 2010
The husband has provided total financial support for the children since separation.
Proposals of the Parties
The wife seeks orders as proposed on page 6 of her case summary document, being exhibit ‘W1’:
a)That the husband transfer to the wife 40 percent of the total number of his shares in Corporation 1 (order 1);
b)Within 7 days of the receipt of any dividend in respect of the husband’s total shareholding in Corporation 1, payable in December 2010, the husband cause to be paid to the wife an amount equivalent to 40 percent of such dividend received (order 2);
c)Each party is declared the sole legal and equitable owner of all property in their respective possession or control, including but not limited to amounts previously received by each party by way of partial property settlement and each party’s superannuation entitlements (orders 3 and 4);
d)That the husband pay to the wife all arrears pursuant to orders 1(v) and 3, made on 4 November 2010, being an amount of $56,000 (order 5); and
e)That the husband pay the wife’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings.
The husband seeks orders as set out in pages 9 to 11 inclusive of his case summary document, being Exhibit ‘H4’:
a)That a base amount of $616,037 is allocated to the wife out of the husband’s interest in the Corporation 1 Staff Superannuation Plan (“the fund”) (order 2.1);
b)That the wife is entitled to be paid the amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001; and the husband’s entitlement in the fund is correspondingly reduced (order 2.2);
c)The Court otherwise declares that the parties have divided between themselves, in specie, all their other property (order 3); and
d)That the wife pay the husband’s costs of and incidental to these proceedings
Evidence of the Wife
The wife relied on the following documents:
1.Amended Initiating Application filed 31 August 2010.
2.Affidavit of the wife sworn and filed 28 October 2010.
3.Financial Statement sworn 19 November 2010 filed 22 November 2010.
Acquisition of assets
The wife gave evidence that she is presently living with friends in Sydney Suburb 5 and that it was her present intention to travel to Melanesia on 26 December 2010 for one month, after which she would return to look for a rental property or a property to buy in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. In cross examination the wife indicated that she had bought a property in Melanesia for $1 million. The settlement of that purchase had not yet taken place but approximately half the funds had been paid to the vendors who were friends of the wife. Further questioning revealed that the intention of the wife was to have the property in Melanesia for the benefit of herself and any of the children who visited Melanesia from time to time, and also for the benefit of members of her family, particularly her brother, who could stay in the property if they wished. The wife had no expectation that this property would provide income to her.
I formed the impression as the wife gave her evidence, that she had felt complete confidence in the husband being responsible for the running and management of the finances of the marriage. Given the skill and expertise of the husband in financial matters, that was an entirely reasonable position for the wife to take. However, one consequence of that pattern of conduct is that the wife was unable to give evidence about a proposed financial plan. Until very recently she had been renting a four bedroom house in the Sydney Suburb 4 area at $2,700 per week. The wife had agreed to rent that house in accordance with two six month leases. At no time did the children or any of them actually live with the wife and there were several occasions when she was absent from Australia in Melanesia so that the house was empty.
Financial planning
The wife made it clear that not only had she not sought employment, but that she had not contemplated a return to paid employment. She agreed with the proposition that she intended to rely on investment income. Unfortunately it appears that the wife had not received advice about the most effective way to structure a settlement to achieve investment income. She had spoken to an accountant who advised her to come back and discuss the matter further when the outcome of these proceedings is known.
Share transfer proposed by wife
Without in any way being critical of the wife, there were aspects of her evidence which revealed she did not understand the implications of the order sought by her for transfer of 40 per cent of the Corporation 1 shares, particularly in relation to capital gains tax payable on that transfer. It is the wife’s intention that, upon transfer of those Corporation 1 shares to her, she would then sell them.
The wife had opposed the preparation of a report by Ms D as joint expert on the issue of capital gains tax implications. An application to the Court was subsequently brought by the husband which the wife opposed. The husband was granted leave to obtain an expert report in his own case. It is unfortunate that the wife did not join in to instruct a joint valuer on the tax implications of a share transfer or sale.
The wife did not appear to accept that in order to remain out of the paid workforce, her assets would need to generate income. There was no evidence as to how she would procure an income, given that most or all of her capital would be held in non-income producing real estate in Melanesia and Australia. Accordingly the transfer of shares was unrealistic. The wife had not given consideration to the consequence for the portfolio of shares being transferred without recognition of the impact on the associated margin loan. Nor had she considered how many shares she proposed to sell and at what cost. The application of the wife in this regard appears to be so uncertain and fraught with the possibility of real financial disadvantage for both parties, that it would be most inappropriate to simply make such an order.
Knowledge of finances
In her affidavit the wife had said at par 66:
On 6 January, 2009 I went to use my Amex and Visa card and they were both declined when I went to use them. I then checked our joint cheque account with Westpac to which I am a signatory and ascertained that the husband had transferred three separate amounts of money namely $51,500, $99,000 and $99,000 on 17 December 2008 out of the account leaving a nil balance. Annexed hereto and marked with a letter ‘S’ is a true copy of an account printout dated 5 January, 2009 showing these transfers.
In her oral evidence the wife said that she had withdrawn the $51,500. She did not know about the other two withdrawals. The evidence of the husband was that the dividend from the Corporation 1 shares had arrived in that account in the ordinary way on 17 December 2008, being $240,282.72. The husband subsequently made two withdrawals of $99,000 and transferred these amounts to the BT margin loan account in order to decrease the outstanding debt, as he always did. It seems to me that the wife was so unused to dealing with any aspects of the parties’ finances that in looking at the statements for the account, it is most likely that she simply failed to recognise a pattern of deposit and transfer, which had been part of the husband’s practise for many years.
Future plans
The wife gave evidence that in 2011 her intention was to assist her son who would be sitting for the HSC, that she would devote time to reading essays for him, doing research and going to the library as she had done for his older sister. I accept that this was the wife’s intention. This plan is based on the wife’s expectation that relationships between herself and her children will be restored. There was no further information about the future plans of the wife.
Wife’s capacity for work
The wife confirmed she understood that after the property settlement she would not be receiving ongoing financial support from the husband. The effect of her evidence was that she would choose not to return to paid employment and not to engage in retraining. That is entirely a matter for the wife. However it is a choice made by her. I consider that based on her past university studies, work history and experience, the wife does have a capacity both to work and retrain.
In answer to a question by counsel for the husband as to whether she had looked into the investment return that would be available on her $1 million property in Melanesia, she said that she had not. When it was further suggested that she might earn $70,000 per annum to live on, not only did the wife say she did not know about that, she was clearly not particularly interested. The wife was not dismissive in this regard, rather she appeared not to perceive the relevance of the information. She said she had not been advised that she would need to return to paid employment and she had not looked into that at all.
Superannuation
The position taken by the wife was opposition to a splitting of the husband’s superannuation. However, in answer to the question, “Your husband seeks to transfer $500,000 to your superannuation fund” the wife said, “Yes”. In answer to the further proposition that it would be a good idea to have access to superannuation the wife also agreed and volunteered that she would be able to access superannuation at 55 years of age.
I accept the proposition put by counsel for the husband and conceded by the wife, that access to superannuation will be a benefit to the wife.
Further, it is the intention of the legislation that superannuation built up during a relationship should be accessible to both parties.
Improvements to property
The parties owned a property in Sydney Suburb 3 in the early years of their marriage. The wife agreed that there had been repainting and refurbishing of the property, and an extension added to it. The wife freely conceded that the husband had worked fulltime in his employment and had undertaken the additional work of repainting the Sydney Suburb 3 property.
Likewise the wife freely conceded that when the Sydney Suburb 4 property had been renovated, the husband had been closely involved with architects and builders on a day to day basis, and that when a problem had arisen with the builder, the husband had been responsible for undertaking proceedings in the relevant tribunal to have the dispute properly addressed. The wife agreed that the husband had controlled and managed that litigation to a successful outcome. The wife also conceded that the husband had undertaken repairs and cleaning to areas of the Sydney Suburb 4 property that had been damaged by the builder.
For reasons that became increasingly clear by the end of these proceedings, the wife had been accustomed to trust and rely on the husband in almost every aspect of their married life, indeed she continues to do so to some extent. For this reason in my view the wife has underestimated the need to understand her own financial position and to obtain reliable financial advice in anticipation of this property settlement. The wife’s reliance on the husband during the marriage, and to some extent after separation, is evidence of the strength and trust within the marriage during at least the first 20 years.
The wife was explicitly and implicitly complimentary about the husband, just as the husband was about the wife in his evidence that followed. The picture that emerged was of the wife having worked very hard to manage the family, with the conceded assistance of the husband.
I was left with the overall impression that the wife felt lonely at times given the husband’s working hours, but that she appreciated the efforts of the husband and accepted that there were benefits to the family from the husband working for the hours he did. The isolation was made bearable by the fact that the husband did devote himself to her and the children when he was not working.
Evidence of the Husband
The husband relied on the following documents:
1.Further Amended Response to Initiating Application filed 15 November 2010.
2.Affidavit Mr Kelly sworn 1 October 2010, filed 6 October 2010.
3.Affidavit of the expert witness, Ms D, sworn 9 December 2010, e-filed 14 December 2010.
4.Financial Statement sworn and filed 23 August 2010.
The husband said he is now living in rental accommodation in Sydney Suburb 4 at $1,500 per week with himself and the three children. His stated plan is to sell shares in order to buy a house to accommodate the family in the order of $2 to $3 million. Not surprisingly the husband said that once he sells the shares, he will not be able to sustain the same level of debt as he currently does. At the moment the income from the share portfolio is sufficient to cover the interest on the associated BT margin loan as well as family expenses. “If I sell shares to buy a home I’ll have to reduce the loan”. This is in my view incontestably true. The evidence of the husband was that if he bought a property between $2.5 and $3 million, it would reduce the share portfolio by approximately 38 per cent and he would then correspondingly sell 40 per cent of the shares. Again the husband gave evidence that with a margin loan secured against the shares, as soon as he sold the shares, the loan became unsustainable. The husband was realistic. “If I can’t afford $3 million I’ll have to go for something smaller”. He also said that he wanted to pay down the debt, he’d always wanted to and that throughout the marriage he had been focused on paying down debt especially non-deductible debt as a first priority.
The proposition was put to the husband that rather than sell shares and buy a home for himself and the children he could rent, thus not disturbing the dividend income from the portfolio. The husband’s answer reflected his qualifications and expertise. “Rent is an impost, it’s dead money”. The husband was asked to prepare a scenario of sale of shares to buy a home. He said that in order to buy a $3 million property including stamp duty and costs and allowing for capital gains tax, together with a proportionate reduction in the associated loan, he would need to sell 78 per cent of the shares, i.e. 275,000 shares. The husband said that it was necessary to reduce the loan to that extent because of the need to take a prudent approach to a margin loan. “You must stay within the limits”.
The husband was extensively cross-examined about his intention to sell shares to buy a home. The thrust of the cross-examination was that the husband was in a financially beneficial position because he receives income from his share portfolio in a tax effective way. Counsel for the wife also put forward the proposition that it would be better for the husband to borrow funds to buy a house or to rent, rather than sell shares to raise the funds necessary to purchase a house. The husband stoutly rejected these propositions. In particular the husband rejected the proposition that a $3 million loan would be financially beneficial than selling shares to raise funds, where interest on the loan would be entirely non-deductible for tax purposes. Again, this evidence simply reflects the husband’s philosophy of preservation of assets, creating the most tax effective position and being both prudent and realistic. The husband said he last sold shares in order to fund the renovations on the Sydney Suburb 4 property in May 2008 and had paid income tax on the sale of the shares at a rate of 46 percent. The husband sold the shares in May 2008 in order to fund the renovations and pay off the mortgage on the Sydney Suburb 4 property. Again when asked why he sold the shares to raise the necessary funds, the husband said it was an effective way to manage finances. The husband’s prudent management of the family’s assets in this way is what has given rise to the parties having a net asset pool of $7.8 million.
Husband’s capacity for work
The husband was asked about the work he is presently undertaking through his company, Company 4. The evidence of the husband[11] was that Company 4 was intended to be a funds management business, but that had not been achieved to date. However the husband is conducting business in his own name, providing financial advice to companies and Government entities. This business turned over $100,000 in the 2009/2010 financial year. The husband was appointed as an expert in a legal case in 2011. The husband receives $450 an hour for his services as an expert.
[11] Husband’s affidavit sworn 1 October 2010, par 35
Withdrawals from the account
The husband was asked about the three withdrawals from the parties’ joint cheque account with Westpac in January 2009, about which the wife had given evidence. The wife’s evidence is discussed above at paragraphs 52 and 53. The husband’s evidence was that he had been responsible for all three withdrawals and that it had been his habit to transfer each and every dividend payment from the Corporation 1 shares to the BT margin loan account. I accept the evidence of the husband in this regard that the dividend was paid into the parties’ joint cheque account then transferred by the husband into the joint margin loan account.
On her own evidence, throughout the marriage until 2008, the wife had unrestricted access to all of the parties’ accounts which were joint accounts. There would always have been funds available for the wife to withdraw. After separation the wife’s access to the parties’ joint accounts became more restricted. I consider it likely that the wife became disturbed or suspicious about the husband’s withdrawals of dividend payments from the parties’ joint cheque account because of this somewhat more restricted access.
I accept the husband’s evidence that it was his usual practice to use the dividend payments, received twice per year, to prepay interest charged on the BT margin loan, reduce the margin loan and to pay for expenses. As previously stated, in 2007 the husband accepted a voluntary redundancy from Corporation 1 and the dividends have been the parties’ sole source of income since 2007. The husband said that since separation he had not made any principal reduction on the BT margin loan, the dividend payments had been used only to reduce interest on the margin loan. I further accept the husband’s evidence that even after separation, the wife was never without funds and that it was always his intention to look after her financially until their affairs were fully separated and resolved.
Husband’s view of wife’s capacity to work
The husband agreed the wife had been a clerk. When the proposition was put to him that in her role as a clerk the wife had been “a bit of a gopher” the husband reacted firmly, “Please don’t be so demeaning about my former wife. Her work was more important than that. She was involved with commercial leasing and did the due diligence process in a transaction for Corporation 1 that I was working on”. The husband was complimentary of the wife’s skills and abilities both in respect of her work in the paid workforce and within the home. The husband rejected the proposition that it was unrealistic to think the wife would be able to obtain paid employment now simply because the wife had worked for professional services companies up until 17 years ago. The husband said, “I don’t believe there is anything holding her back. She has very, very high social skills. She gets on with people well. People are paid good money who have such skills”. This corresponds with my own observation of the wife’s presentation and ability to communicate.
Events after 2007
The husband gave evidence about the significant changes which took place in the parties’ lives in 2007.
The husband conceded that until 2007 the largely separated roles of the parties had worked well. The husband had been the sole income earner while the wife was primarily responsible for day to day running of the household and day to day care of the children. He agreed there had been a change of attitude by the wife in that year. Both parties maintained a dignified restraint in not revealing any details of the problems at the heart of the marriage. The husband explained that in 2007 he had stopped work, having taken a voluntary redundancy from Corporation 1, and did not want to impinge on the wife’s role at home. He said the wife would bring the children back from school, go out and would also sometimes go out again after dinner. The husband said he thought there might be issues he had to understand, particularly in relation to the wife’s health and her thyroid condition. The husband went to a psychiatrist in an attempt to understand what he could do in his then difficulties.
The proposition was put to the husband that until physical separation in December 2009, the wife had continued to be involved in the day to day care of the children. The husband responded as follows:
Husband:Without seeking to discredit her, her dedication to that task dropped away to a very low level.
Counsel:She continued to care for the children?
Husband:She did these tasks, dropped them at school, make lunches, picked them up. They were discrete tasks. Her behaviour was completely different.
After separation in about December 2008 the husband said he took on much of the responsibility in relation to the children’s schools, meals, cooking and washing. From July 2009, he also did all of the family shopping. The husband continued to have the assistance of cleaners but cut back from three times a week to twice a week. He did more of the washing, cooked when the wife chose not to and when she was away for periods in Melanesia.
The husband reflected on the fact that at present the children are spending very little time with their mother and that familial relationships are extremely strained. He said this:
Husband: I don’t think we’ll get back to where we were. Only the family knows what we’ve been through, it’s very distressing. At this point they’ve lost their mother.
Counsel: You’re aware that the mother has taken steps to improve things?
Husband: What’s she is doing is exactly the wrong way to go about things. I have 100 per cent of the time with the children. I am responsible for them 100 per cent of the time.
The husband acknowledged that he is presently in a relationship. There is no present contemplation that this lady would be a future member of the household. When questioned about future employment, the husband said that he would continue to operate Company 4 although the business could change in a difficult market and that the global financial crisis had had a major impact on this business. He has put the funds management company idea on hold and is contemplating employment which he expects would be at approximately the same level as his present consulting.
The husband impressed as an honest, straight forward witness. He had clearly given considerable thought to the future. I formed the impression that he was quite distressed by the prospect of the wife trying to manage her finances alone.
Evidence of Ms D
Ms D is a fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and a partner of Accounting Firm 1. Ms D was not required for cross-examination.
The Capital Gains Tax issue
Ms D calculated that the gross capital gain in the event of disposal of all of the Corporation 1 shares, namely 350,627 shares, would be $4,951,833. The husband is eligible for a 50 per cent discount on the gross capital gain, having held the shares for more than 12 months. There was an assumption that the husband would be taxed at the top marginal rate of 46.5 per cent. Ms D calculated that the capital gains tax liability would be $1,151,301.00. This evidence, which was unchallenged, cannot be the complete answer to the capital gains tax issue.
The projected tax payable on the sale of the Corporation 1 shares was included in the joint balance sheet as $1,179,065.[12] This sum was calculated on the assumption that all shares within the share portfolio would be sold and that tax would be payable on the capital gain. It is contended that such sum is properly in the liability pool as the husband has always held the Corporation 1 shares as trading stock and traded in them, is definitely intending to sell shares to fund the purchase of a home for himself and the children in the sum of $2.5 to $3 million, discharge the margin lending debt secured over the shares and use the remaining portfolio as trading investment stock.
[12] Balance Sheet, liabilities
However, it is not the proposal of the husband that the whole of the share portfolio be sold. Rather it is his express intention to buy a home in the order of $2.5 to $3 million to accommodate himself and the children if he is able to do so, and to greatly reduce or even pay out the margin loan debt associated with the share portfolio. The evidence of capital gains tax was based on a presumption of sale of all shares, together with taxation at the top marginal rate. Neither assumption is certain.
In my view the only safe course in this matter is to remove this capital gains tax figure from the liability pool and make an adjustment pursuant to s 75(2) to allow for the fact that the husband will have a significant capital gains tax payment to make in an indeterminate amount.
Submissions
Wife’s submissions
On behalf of the wife in opening it was put that:
a)The contributions to the date of hearing should be assessed as equal; that there should be an adjustment of 5 to 10 percent in favour of the wife, taking into consideration the children living with the father and the wife lacking capacity for work.
b)The wife was opposed to the splitting of superannuation. She did not want any allocated superannuation despite only having $5,132 in her own fund. I do not accept this submission given the evidence of the wife that access to superannuation would be of benefit to her.
c)The wife was opposed to any allowance for capital gains tax on the sale of shares.
d)The wife pressed for the further payment to her of $56,000 being a further 14 weeks of spousal maintenance, at the rate of $4,000 ($2,500 + $1,500) per week for the period from 3 September to 15 December 2010. I reject this submission.
In submissions on behalf of the wife these matters were added to the list:
a)That the husband had paid his legal costs in the sum of $83,849 from income and that amount should be added back in to the asset pool.
b)That $128,000 of payments by the husband to the wife, at the rate of $4,000 per week for 32 weeks, should be assessed to be spousal maintenance and not interim property settlement.
c)That contributions should be assessed either as equal between the parties, or with perhaps a difference no more than four per cent in favour of the husband.
d)In relation to adjustments pursuant to s 75(2), although the husband would have the obligation to care for the children and to pay for their school fees and other needs, he would also be in a superior earning position. In the event contributions by each party were considered to be equal, there should be no further adjustment on account of the husband’s greater contribution to date and continuing in relation to the children, because the husband has a higher income earning capacity than the wife. But in the event there is a considerable disparity in the contributions in the order of 65/35 as submitted, then there should be an adjustment of 5 per cent in favour of the wife. It was submitted that overall on a just and equitable basis there should be a division in the order of 55 per cent to the wife and 45 per cent to the husband.
Husband’s submissions
On behalf of the husband in opening it was put:
· That there should be an assessment of contributions to date of hearing of 65/35 in favour of the husband, with an adjustment in the order of 5 per cent to the wife on account of the disparity in income between the parties, with an overall outcome of 60 per cent to the husband and 40 per cent to the wife.
In final submissions, counsel for the husband conceded that it is at the Court’s discretion to add back to the asset pool money paid from income. It was submitted that it was reasonable for the husband to provide a home for himself and the children in the area where they attend school. The husband would need to sell the Corporation 1 shares in order to fund the purchase of a new home in the Sydney Suburb 4 area. Sale of these shares necessarily has capital gains tax implications. It was submitted on behalf of the husband that in the event of the Corporation 1 shares were transferred to the wife, she would almost certainly sell them and have an unquantified capital gains tax liability dependant upon the date of acquisition of various shares. I accept this submission.
In relation to periodic support, it was submitted that the wife had received a rental bond, $1 million from the proceeds of sale of the Sydney Suburb 4 property and that from the date of that sale the husband had been out of the home and paying rent himself. It was also submitted that release of the proceeds from the sale of the Sydney Suburb 4 property had taken the need for spousal maintenance “right out of the picture”. The wife received $1 million from the sale of the Sydney Suburb 4 property. These funds, in combination with the earlier release of funds of $1.25 million to the wife in August 2010, together could have generated income from interest in the order of $140,000 per annum. It was urged on the Court that the order for the weekly payment of $4,000 should be discharged from the date on which the payments had been made. I accept that submission. The wife no longer had a need for support from that date.
It was submitted that the wife had made a choice not to work despite having a capacity to work. It was properly conceded that the wife’s capacity to earn income was considerably less than that of the husband. I accept the submission that the wife has chosen not to engage in paid employment. However the wife does not appear to fully understand the implications of that choice.
In relation to superannuation, it was submitted that it was the intention of the Act to provide for the retirement of parties, that all of the superannuation in the Corporation 1 Staff Superannuation plan had been accumulated during the marriage and that it was appropriate and indeed beneficial for the wife to have a share of that superannuation.
The analysis of contributions was that the husband had made a contribution through the ownership of his B Pty Ltd shares at the commencement of cohabitation, the husband had made an inordinate contribution from income by carefully managing his position in relation to the share portfolio which he acquired, in addition to providing the income from his paid employment. This represented an overwhelming contribution from the husband so as to amount to a 65/35 split between the parties favouring the husband.
It was submitted that the husband would pay school fees for both children and there was little or no likelihood of assistance from the wife. I accept that submission. The wife is likely to give gifts and take the children away on holidays. She is unlikely to make regular financial contributions to the expenses of the children.
Analysis
In considering what order if any should be made under s 79 of the Act, the Court must take into account the following factors (s 79(4)):
(a)The financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the party to the marriage.
(b)The contribution other than a financial contribution made directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the party to the marriage etc.
(c)The contribution made by a party to the marriage to the welfare of the family.
(d)The effect of any proposed order upon the earning capacity of either party.
(e)The matters referred to in the subsection 75(2).
(f)Any other order under this Act affecting a party to the marriage.
(g)Any child support under the Child Support Assessment Act 1989.
In order to determine this matter I must take the following four steps:
1.Identify the pool of assets.
2.Analyse the contributions of the parties to the date of hearing.
3.Make any adjustment required under s 75(2) of the Act.
4.Identify an outcome that would be just and equitable in the circumstances.
The asset pool
The Joint Balance Sheet of the parties is reproduced below[13].
[13] Exhibit ‘HW1’
Assets Wife’s Value Husband’s Value
1
H
[Corporation 1] as at 08.11.2010 @ $22.29 350,627 shares
7,815,476
7,815,476
2
H
[Company 5] as at 08.11.2010 @ $2.01 13,001 Stapled securities (…)
26,132
26,132
3
H
[Company 6] as at 08.11.2010 @ $O.435 75,000 Stapled securities (…)
32,625
32,625
4
W:
[Company 7] shares as at 08.11.2010 @ $2.67 400 Shares (…)
1,068
1,068
5
H
[Company 7] shares as at 08.11.2010 @ $2.67 400 Shares (…)
1,068
1,068
6
W.
[Company 8] as at 08.11.2010 @ $0.65 201 Shares (…)
131
131
8
W:
Interim Property settlement 12/09 includes Rental Bond
170,800
170,800
8
W
Interim Property settlement 10/02/10
1,000,000
1,000,000
9
W
Interim Property settlement 31/08/10
1,250,000
1,250,000
10
W
2003 Mercedes [vehicle]
25,000
25,000
11
H
1994 Honda Civic [vehicle] Red Book value
4,500
4,500
12
W
Jewellery
20,000
20,000
13
H
Wine Collection
6,000
6,000
14
H
Westpac Private Bank Account
39,707
39,707
Total
$10,394, 507
$10,394,507
Less Liabilities
15
H
BT Margin Lending 08.11.2010
2,611,551
2,611,511
16
H
CGT on [Corporation 1] shares[14]
1,179,065
1,179,065
Total:
$3,790,616
$3,790,616
Plus Superannuation
17
H
[Corporation 1] Staff Super Accumulation
1,200,898
1,200,898
18
W
[Clerk] Super – Accumulation
5,132
5,132
Total
$1,206,030
Summary of Pool: Asset pool:
97. Superannuation:
$10,394,507
$ 1,206.030
Total:
$11,600,537
Liabilities:
$ 3,790.616
NET ASSET POOL:
$ 7,809,921
[14] IABH & HRBH[2010] FamCA 110; Rosati (1998) FLC 92-804
The asset pool has been identified by the parties in the joint balance sheet as having a net value of $7,809,921. There is an error in the amount of $2,000 in the joint balance sheet (‘HW1’).
The total of gross assets is:
(not as stated $10,394,507).$10,392,507
I have excluded the liability of CGT on Corporation 1 shares for reasons stated.
Remaining liability:
$2,611,511
Net total
$7,780,996
Plus superannuation: $1,200,898
$5,132
$1,206,030
$1,206,030
Total assets for division
$8,987,026
I find the net asset pool to be:
$8,987,026
Legal costs
I will not add back the legal costs paid by the husband from income. The husband has earned income independent of income generating assets. This income was earned through the husband conducting his own business providing equity financial advice and strategic management expertise. He has paid legal costs from that income. Therefore such costs should not be added back.
Spousal maintenance payments
I accept the submission of counsel for the husband that the order for payment of $4,000 per week was no longer required after the significant interim property division. The sum of $4,000 per week should not be categorised as spousal maintenance. The husband continued to have the capacity to support the wife, but given the sum received by the wife in interim property settlements the wife no longer had the need for that support. The fact that she chose not to seek employment does not alter that fact.
Contributions – section 79(4) factors
In this matter the parties commenced their relationship in 1985 with minimal assets. I reject the submission that the husband should be given credit for a greater initial contribution on account of having owned shares in B Pty Ltd which were sold during the course of the marriage for $100,000. However these shares were the seeds of the special contribution by the husband over the whole course of the marriage. This special contribution is discussed a little later in these reasons.
The marriage was a long one. Between 1985 and 2007 both parties worked hard in their respective roles to capacity. The wife was in the paid workforce in the early years of the marriage and contributed all of her income to household expenses. The wife did not pursue a further Bachelor’s degree for reasons unrelated to the marriage. Later, by agreement the wife ceased paid work when the second child was born and thereafter the wife devoted herself to the care of the children and to the maintenance of the household. The wife followed her husband to Melbourne for a period of four to five years and otherwise supported and encouraged the husband both in his capacity to work long hours and in his decision to take up offers of employment which involved the family relocating interstate.
The husband had an extremely successful career in the finance industry. He worked to capacity and also made a significant contribution to the care of the children with their homework, getting them to and from school when they were older and in their sporting and extra-curricular activities. However the bulk of the responsibility for day to day care of the children, especially when they were young, fell on the wife. In every way the parties did all that they could to create a successful and financially comfortable life for themselves and their children.
However in one respect there is a contribution made by the husband, which is not matched or outweighed by any contribution of the wife. There are matters set out in the affidavit of the husband[15] which refer to this contribution. In about 1981 the husband commenced purchasing shares. He sold those shares in about 1983 or 1984 to fund his living expenses while he undertook business studies. Later he again began purchasing shares with the initial investments being in Corporation 1 shares issued to staff. Subsequently as part of his salary package, the husband was granted a series of options and other share rights over the years. These options and share rights were generally dependant upon obtaining certain performance requirements and were not handed out to all staff. Significantly the husband was unchallenged in his assertion that the decision to invest in shares was at his sole discretion. Most of the shares were purchased by drawing on borrowing capacity. Of course the wife makes a contribution by allowing loans to be brought into existence by the husband. However the husband clearly had an interest in and facility for managing the share portfolio, which he slowly put together. This was in addition to his salary. It is clear that the husband was careful to ensure that bonuses and dividends arising from the share portfolio were applied in the most tax advantageous way. There is no suggestion that the husband spent money on anything other than the family during the whole course of the marriage. In fact what he did was put together a share portfolio which would fund the future of both parties. The husband’s specialist skills in this regard should be acknowledged. It goes beyond hard work in high earning employment. This was an area of special entrepreneurial expertise and that contribution by the husband should be acknowledged. I consider that the contributions at the date of hearing were 52.5 – 47.5 per cent in favour of the husband.
[15] Husband’s affidavit, pars 31 to 34
Adjustment pursuant to Section 75(2)
By the time of physical separation, the husband was entirely responsible for the care of the children and that has continued since separation and will continue on present indications for some time. The youngest child has three years left at school. Both children attend private schools. The husband will be entirely responsible for their fees and associated expenses, together with their extra-curricular interests. The wife has made a decision not to enter the paid workforce and to live on an investment income. The evidence does not suggest that the wife will be providing financially for the children, other than for gifts and holidays.
I consider that there should be an adjustment in favour of the husband in the order of 5 per cent in respect of his obligation to care for the children. The children have lived with him since separation. They both attend private schools. They will be dependent on him at least until E finishes school in 2014, perhaps longer if either or both of them follow their elder sister to university.
The wife on the evidence has a capacity to work, although she would probably be required to do some retraining if she were to take up again her work as a clerk. She has a Bachelor’s degree and could qualify for a number of occupations if she underwent further study or a course of training. There was no medical evidence of matters relating to the wife’s health. There was an acknowledgement by both parties that she has throughout her adult life suffered from a thyroid condition. There is nothing to suggest that that is an impediment to employment. Naturally it is a matter for the wife to choose not to work. However in terms of capacity, I consider that she does have a capacity to work, although at a lower level of income than the husband. There should be an adjustment in favour of the wife in the order of 10 per cent to reflect this significant difference in income earning capacity. The parties are of similar age and will both have access to superannuation in retirement.
The overall outcome will be that the wife will have sufficient funds to buy a property to accommodate herself and any of the children who come to live or stay with her in future. The orders provide that the wife will have superannuation in the order of $500,000. In cross examination, the wife conceded that such an amount in superannuation would be beneficial to her. She will otherwise have funds to invest. Again, it is her choice whether she continues to hold an asset in Melanesia worth $1 million which does not generate income.
The husband will be obliged to sell about 75 per cent of the share portfolio in order to fund the re-accommodation of himself and the children. It is reasonable for him to wish to buy a home, as does the wife, even more so when the children are living with him. He will have funds in superannuation, will pay down all or most of the margin loan in respect of the shares and will have a very much more modest share portfolio with which to draw some income, but he will no doubt continue in paid employment or self employment for many years in the future. He will pay capital gains tax on the sale of shares in an amount likely to be less than $1,179,065, but nevertheless close to, that amount.
There should be an adjustment of 10 per cent in favour of the husband to address his obligation to pay capital gains tax on the sale of the greater part of his portfolio of shares. That is an indeterminate figure.
Applying the division of 57.5 per cent to the husband and 42.5 per cent to the wife to the net asset pool of
$8,987,026:
· Husband $5,167,540
· Wife $3,819,486
Total
$8,987,026
Identify an outcome that is just and equitable
The wife retains/receives:
4
Company 7 shares
1,068
6
Company 8
131
7
Interim property settlement 12/09
170,800
8
Interim property settlement 10/02/2010
1,000,000
9
Interim property settlement 31/08/2010
1,250,000
10
2003 Mercedes vehicle
25,000
12
Jewellery
20,000
18
Clerk Superannuation
5,132
$2,472,131
Plus superannuation split payment
500,000
Plus cash payment by husband
847,355
Total to wife
$3,819,486
The husband retains:
1
Corporation 1 shares
7,815,476
2
Company 5 stapled securities
26,132
3
Company 6 stapled securities
32,625
5
Company 7 shares
1,068
11
Honda Civic vehicle
4,500
13
Wine collection
6,000
14
Westpac Private Bank account
39,707
17
Corporation 1 Staff Superannuation
($1,200,898 less $500,000 split)700,898
$8,626,406
Husband maintains responsibility for BT Marginal Loan
$2,611,511
Husband makes payments to wife
$847,355
$5,167,540
[Husband is liable for an indeterminate capital gains tax liability of up to $1,179,065]
I certify that the preceding one hundred and twelve (112) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Cleary delivered on 27 May 2011.
Associate:
Date: 27 May 2011.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Tax Law
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies