Krusaroski and Krusaroski & Anor (No 2)

The Family Court of Australia considered an application by the wife for interim property settlement and spousal maintenance, and an application by the second respondent (the husband's brother) for an interim order for the sale of the former matrimonial home. The parties, Mr. Krusaroski (husband) and Ms. Krusaroski (wife), had been in a relationship for eight years and separated in January 2012. The wife resided in the former matrimonial home with their two young children. The husband and his brother were involved in significant property development and building enterprises, with an estimated combined net worth of approximately $2.5 million.

The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate and in the interests of justice to make an interim property order for the wife, and to consider the wife's claims for interim spousal maintenance, including periodic payments and the payment of certain expenses. Additionally, the court had to decide whether to grant the second respondent's application for an interim order for the sale of the former matrimonial home, which was jointly owned by the husband and the second respondent. A key issue throughout the proceedings was the husband's alleged failure to provide full and frank financial disclosure.

Watts J found that the husband had failed to comply with court orders and his duty of financial disclosure, frustrating the wife's ability to prepare a comprehensive financial statement. Despite the husband's criticisms of the wife's draft balance sheet, the court accepted that on an interim basis, a broader approach was permissible. Given the likely complexity and duration of the litigation, and the husband's lack of disclosure, the court deemed it appropriate to make an interim property order of $100,000 in favour of the wife, considering it a conservative amount unlikely to prejudice a final determination. Regarding spousal maintenance, the court ordered the husband to pay the mortgage, rates, and insurances on the former matrimonial home, as this was not opposed. The court also ordered the husband to pay health insurance premiums for the wife and children, car insurance and registration for the wife's vehicle, and $450 per week in periodic spousal maintenance, noting the wife's demonstrated need and the husband's capacity to pay, despite the difficulty in precisely assessing his income. The application for a lump sum spousal maintenance order of $25,000 was dismissed.

The application by the second respondent for an interim order for the sale of the former matrimonial home was dismissed. The court noted that the second respondent had allowed the wife and husband to build their home on his land and had acquiesced to their occupation since 2008. While the second respondent expressed a desire to sell the property as an investment, the court considered the broader context of the husband and brother's extensive commercial enterprises and the fact that the wife and young children resided in the property. The court found no evidence that the bank was pressing for a sale, and therefore, it was not appropriate to make an expedited sale order at this interim stage.