LANGHAM & LANGHAM
[2018] FCCA 104
•6 February 2018
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| LANGHAM & LANGHAM | [2018] FCCA 104 |
| Catchwords: FAMILY LAW – Property – add backs – 75(2) adjustment. |
| Legislation: Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), Pt VIII |
| Cases cited: Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52 Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545 Vass & Vass [2015] FamCAFC 51 Challen & Challen [2007] FamCA 1292 |
| Applicant: | MS LANGHAM |
| Respondent: | MR LANGHAM |
| File Number: | NCC 113 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Middleton |
| Hearing date: | 26 May 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 26 May 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Newcastle |
| Delivered on: | 6 February 2018 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Williamson |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Powe & White Family Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | N/A |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Curtis Gant Betts |
ORDERS
Within seven days of the date of this order Ms Langham (the wife) is to do all acts and things to transfer to Mr Langham (the husband) all her right title and interest in the Holden (omitted) motor vehicle which is in her possession and for that purpose she is to:
(a)provide to the husband all documents and particulars associated with the Holden (omitted);
That within seven days of the date of this order Mr Langham (the husband) is to do all acts and things to transfer to Ms Langham (the wife) all his right title and interest in the caravan which is in his possession and for that purpose he is to:
(a)provide access to the caravan to the wife so that she may receive delivery of the caravan by no later than 5PM seven days from the date of this order;
(b)to ensure that the caravan is in good working order; and
(c)provide to the wife all documents and particulars associated with the caravan.
The husband must, within seven days of these orders, or in the event he has not received the long service leave payment within seven days of receipt of same, pay to the wife the sum of $23,220 from the long service leave payment that he is entitled to receive from his employment with (employer omitted) and provide simultaneously with that payment to the wife the relevant payment notice.
Pursuant to section 90MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975, whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the superannuation interests of the husband in Mr Langham superannuation fund (the fund) that:
(a)the wife shall be entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 using a base amount of $113,321;
(b)there be a corresponding reduction in the superannuation interest of the husband in the fund to whom the splittable payment would have been made but this order;
(c)there be a corresponding reduction in the balance the husband's superannuation interests in the fund which otherwise would not have occurred except these orders;
(d)the operative time for the superannuation split is the fourth business day after service of these orders on the fund; and
(e)having been accorded procedural fairness and being served by ordinary mail a copy of these sealed orders, this order binds the Trustees of the fund.
After the superannuation splitting order has taken effect pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties, as directors of (omitted business) (the company) which is the trustee of the fund must cause a meeting to be held on behalf the company and fund to:
(a)direct the fund to distribute the balances of each member to an alternative complying superannuation fund of the members choosing;
(b)to wind up the fund with any applicable wind up fees to be first deducted in equal shares from their respective membership balances; and
(c)cause (omitted business) to be wound up absolutely, with each party required by one half of any applicable wind up fee.
From the making of these orders and pending the husband’s compliance with making full payment to the wife in accordance with these orders, the wife may cause to lodge with the Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) that she has a legal and/or beneficial interest in the caravan held by the husband in his name which may remain in place until such time that the husband has made full payment to the wife in accordance with these orders and thereafter once the husband has satisfied his personal obligations under these orders the wife is to remove any notification to the PPSR in relation to this order.
Except as otherwise provided in these orders and as between the parties, by way of further property settlement each party retain to the exclusion of the other the whole of the beneficial interest in all property of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate in her or his respective sole name, possession or control, including but not limited to all motor vehicle, furniture, furnishings and personal effects, and the balances of all bank, building society and like accounts, and to all life insurance, superannuation and like entitlements in their respective sole name whether presently standing or as may arise in the future.
Except as otherwise provided in these orders and as between the parties, by way of further property settlement each party indemnify the other and keep the other indemnified for all liabilities in his or her respective sole name including but not limited to all personal loans, credit cards and outstanding bills and for all liabilities relating to or secured upon any property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders.
Should either party neglect or refuse to do any act or execute any document necessary to give effect to these Orders within 7 days of a written request by the other party to do so, then the Registrar for the time being of the Federal Circuit Court at Newcastle be hereby appointed and authorised pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended), to do such act or thing or execute such document on behalf of the defaulting party, and in such event the defaulting party pay the other party’s costs of and incidental thereto.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Langham & Langham is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT NEWCASTLE |
NCC 113 of 2017
| MS LANGHAM |
Applicant
And
| MR LANGHAM |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
It was agreed between the parties that this matter would be heard on the papers.
The parties prepared a statement of agreed relevant facts.
At the time of the trial the husband was aged 56 and the wife aged 46 years.
The parties commenced a relationship in 1996. At the time of commencing the relationship neither party had any asset or liability of significance.
At the commencement of the relationship the wife was working within the (omitted) industry and the husband was working within the (omitted) industry.
The party's first child X was born on (omitted) 1996. The wife returned to full-time work almost immediately after X’s birth.
The wife received a workplace injury claim in the amount of $55,000 in 1998. Also in 1998 the husband was made redundant in the (omitted) industry and receives an amount between $70,000 and $80,000. Both payments were consumed within the party's relationship.
On (omitted) 1999 the parties married.
On (omitted) 1999 the parties’ second child Y was born.
The wife again resumed casual employment after the birth of Y.
On (omitted) 2006 the parties’ third child Z was born. Thereafter the wife ceased work and primarily remains within the home as a parent and homemaker.
In 2011 the parties establish the Mr Langham super fund and appoint the (omitted business) as the corporate trustee.
The parties separated on 10 March 2015. Accordingly the parties had a relationship relevant to these proceedings of approximately 19 years.
In (omitted) 2016 the wife received an inheritance from her late mother's estate in the sum of $53,000. The wife sets out details of her expenditure of that sum as follows:
a)$6000 to Y to buy a car;
b)$3000 for the wife and the children to go on holidays;
c)$4000 for debts and living expenses; and
d)$39,000 left in an account at the time of filing her application
The husband received a redundancy payment in the sum of $144,422 from (employer omitted) on (omitted) 2016.
The husband set out his expenditure of that redundancy as follows:
a)caravan $51,000;
b)Ride on mower $3000;
c)Furniture $2350;
d)Quad bike $7000;
e)Thermomix $2278;
f)Tractor $16,000;
g)Holiday $10,000;
h)Cash payment to daughter $2000;
i)Credit card payment and $3867; J
j)Balance $47,000.
After receiving the redundancy the husband did not receive any other form of income.
In late 2016 early 2017 the husband was informed by his employer ((employer omitted)) that he would be the beneficiary of a long service leave entitlement assessed to be approximately $30,000. It was anticipated that the money would be received after 1 July 2017.
On 1 March 2017 at the first return of this matter the husband disclosed that his bank account balance had reduced to $14,000.
On 16 March the parties engaged in a conciliation conference and the husband advised the wife that his bank account has been reduced to $6000.
At the time of trial two of the three children live with the wife and the eldest son was living independently.
Balance sheet
The parties reached agreement in relation to the balance sheet as follows:
Assets
Ownership
Description
Agreed Value
Husband
(omitted) Vehicle
$44,000
Husband
Furniture
$500
Husband
Caravan
$51,000
Husband
Tractor
$16,000
Husband
Quad bike
$7,000
Wife
Holden (omitted)
$5,000
Wife
Mitsubishi (omitted)
$5,000
Wife
Furniture
$5,000
Total
$133,500.
Addbacks
Ownership
Description
Wife value
Husband value
Husband
Balance of redundancy
$76,422
NIL
Liabilities
Husband
(omitted) (Holden (omitted))
$25,245
Wife
(omitted) Mastercard
$7656
Wife
(omitted) Visa
$4692
Husband
(omitted) Finance
$55,089
Total
$92,682
Superannuation
Member
Name of Fund
Type of Interest
Value
Husband
(omitted)
Acc
$1842
Husband
(employer omitted)
Acc
$57,124
Husband
(omitted) Super
(omitted) Super
$201,279
Wife
(omitted) Super
(omitted) Super
33,603
Total
$293,848
Financial Resources
Ownership
Description
Agreed value
Husband
Long service leave corporation
$30,000
The evidence
The wife relied on the following documents:
a)Affidavit of Ms Langham filed 3 March 2017;
b)Financial statement of Ms Langham filed 3 March 2017;
c)Statement of agreed facts filed 17 May 2017;
d)Written submissions filed 23 May 2017;
e)Minute of order filed 23 May 2017;
f)Joint balance sheet filed 23 May 2017.
The husband relied upon the following material:
a)Response filed 3 March 2017;
b)Husband's affidavit filed 3 March 2017;
c)Husband's financial statement filed 3 March 2017;
d)Agreed facts filed 17 May 2017;
e)Joint balance sheet filed 23 May 2017; and
f)Written submissions filed 23 May 2017.
The issues
The parties agree that the following issues remain to be determined:
(1)Whether the balance of the husband's redundancy, said to be $76,422, should be added back into the pool or otherwise considered pursuant to section 75(2)(o) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and;
(2)Whether there should be an adjustment to either party pursuant to s 75(2).
Orders proposed
The wife proposes the following orders:
1.Within 7 days of the date of this order, Mr Langham (the “husband”) is to do all acts and things to transfer to Ms Langham (the “wife”) his right, title and interest in the caravan which is in his possession and for that purpose is to:
1.1Deliver the caravan to the wife at her residence by no later than 5pm seven days from the date of this order;
1.2Ensure that the caravan is in good working order;
1.3Provide to the wife all documents and particulars associated with the caravan;
1.4Ensure that the caravan remains insured until such time that it is conveyed to the wife;
1.5Not encumber the caravan in any way.
2.The husband must, by no later than 7 days after receipt, pay to the wife the total amount of any long service leave payment that he is entitled to receive from his former employer (employer omitted) and provide simultaneously to the wife the relevant payment notice.
3.Pursuant to section 90MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act whenever a splittable payment becomes payable in respect of the superannuation interest of the husband in (omitted) Superannuation Fund (the “Fund”) that:
3.1 the wife shall be entitled to be paid an amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 using the base amount of $113,321; and
3.2 there be a corresponding reduction in the superannuation interest of the husband in the funds to whom the splittable payment would have been made but for this order;
3.3 there be a corresponding reduction on the balance of the husbands’ superannuation interest in fund which otherwise would not have occurred except for these orders;
3.4 the operative time for this superannuation split is the fourth business day after service of these orders on the fund;
3.5 having being accorded procedural fairness and being served by ordinary mail a copy of these sealed orders, this order binds the Trustee of the Fund.
4.After the superannuation splitting order has taken affect pursuant to the aforesaid order, the parties, as directors of (omitted business) (the “company”) which is the trustee of the fund must cause a meeting to be held on behalf of the company and fund to:
4.1 direct the fund to distribute the balances of each member to an alternative complying superannuation fund of the members choosing; and
4.2 to wind up the fund, with any applicable wind up fees to be first deducted in equal shares from their respective membership balances; and
4.3 Cause (omitted business) to be wound up absolutely, with each party required to pay one half of any applicable wind up fee.
5.From the making of these orders and pending the husband’s compliance with making full payment to the wife in accordance with these orders, the wife may cause to lodge with the Personal Property Securities Register (“PPSR”) that she has a legal and/or beneficial interest in any caravan held by the husband in his name which may remain in place until such time that the husband has made full payment to the wife in accordance with these orders and thereafter once the husband has satisfied his personal obligations under these orders the wife is to remove any notification to the PPSR in relation to this order.
6.Except as otherwise provided in these orders and as between the parties, by way of further property settlement each party retain to the exclusion of the other the whole of the beneficial interest in all property of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate in her or his respective sole name, possession or control, including but not limited to all motor vehicle, furniture, furnishings and personal effects, and the balance of all bank, building society and like accounts, and to all life insurance, superannuation and like entitlements in their respective sole name whether presently standing or as may arise in the future.
7.Except as otherwise provided in these orders and as between the parties, by way of further property settlement each party indemnify the other and keep the other indemnified for all liabilities in his or her respective sole name including but not limited to all personal loans, credit cards and outstanding bills and for all liabilities relating to or secured upon any property to which that party is entitled pursuant to these orders.
8.Should either party neglect or refuse to do any act or execute any document necessary to give effect to these Orders within 7 days of a written request by the other party to do so, then the Registrar for the time being of the Family Court of Australia Newcastle be hereby appointed and authorised pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act 1975 (as amended), to do such act or thing or execute such document on behalf of the defaulting party, and in such event the defaulting party pay the other party’s costs of and incidental thereto.
The husband proposed the following orders:
1.That within 14 days of the date of this order, the husband do all acts and things to transfer to the wife his right, title and interest in:
a.The tractor in possession of the husband;
b.The quad bike in possession of the husband.
by making the chattels available at the home address of the husband for the wife’s collection.
2.That on 3 July 2017 the husband take all steps necessary to withdraw from the long service leave corporation his long service leave entitlements owed to him from his employment service with (employer omitted) ((employer omitted)) Pty Ltd and direct such proceeds to be paid:
a.The sum of $24,881 to the wife; and
b.The sum of $5120 to the husband; and
c.The balance is any divided equally between the parties.
3.The husband and the wife shall do all things necessary to cause the Holden (omitted) motor vehicle in possession of the wife to be sold and the finance facility to (omitted) reduced by the sale proceeds and thereafter the parties shall each be responsible for one-half share of any liability arising from the debt.
4.That the wife shall be responsible for and indemnify the husband in respect if the (omitted) MasterCard and (omitted) Visa credit cards.
5.That the base amount allocated to the wife Ms Langham over the interest held by the husband Mr Langham in Langham Superannuation Fund is $113,321.
6.That in accordance with s 90MT(1) of the Family Law Act 1975 wherein the Trustee of Langham Superannuation Fund makes a splittable payment out of the interest held by Mr Langham in the Langham Superannuation Fund the Trustee shall pay to Ms Langham the superannuation entitlement calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 and that upon such payment there be a corresponding reduction in entitlement of Mr Langham in the (omitted) Superannuation Fund.
7.That order 6 herein has effect from the operative time.
8.That the operative time be four (4) working days from the date of service of the order herein upon the Trustee.
9.That having being accorded procedural fairness in relation to the making of the above order this order binds the Trustees of Langham Superannuation Fund.
10.Following completion of order 6 above the parties shall do all things necessary as directors of the Trustee Company (omitted business) of the Langham Superannuation Fund to do the following:
a.Hold a meeting on behalf of the Trustee company to resolve that:
i.The fund be wound up with the parties meeting in equal shares any costs and expenses incurred in the winding up of the Fund;
ii.Directing the Fund to distribute the members’ balances to such other fund as nominated by each party; and
iii.Any other steps required to cause the Fund and the Trustee company to be wound up absolutely.
11.That as between the parties and unless otherwise specified in these orders each party shall indemnify the other for any liability including liability of borrower or guarantor attaching to any property including business property, whether that be realty or personalty to be retained by the party;
12.That the husband and the wife do all acts and things and give all consents and execute all documents and writings necessary to give effect to the orders made herein.
13.That in the event that either party refuses or neglects to sign a document or documents required pursuant to these orders, the Registrar or Deputy Registrar of the Newcastle Registry of the Family Court of Australia is hereby appointed pursuant to section 106A of the Family Law Act to sign each document or documents instead of the defaulting party.
14.That the wife pay the husband’s costs of these proceedings.
Assessment
Both parties seek an adjustment to their existing property. They both agree that but for the redundancy they each have equitable and legal right to the property in their respective positions.
The parties have been separated since 2015 and as a result they no longer enjoy the benefit of their equitable and legal rights to the property in each other's possession. In those circumstances I am satisfied that it is just and equable to make an order adjusting their property interests.[1]
[1] Stanford & Stanford [2012] HCA 52; Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79(2).
The parties agree that they have each made equal contributions to the assets and liabilities of their marriage. In those circumstances neither party is entitled to an adjustment as a result of their contributions.
The parties agree that since separation Z and Y have lived with the wife and they have spent alternate weekends with the husband from Friday afternoon until Sunday afternoon.
At the time of separation the wife was working in the (omitted) industry and she continues to work in the (omitted) industry from home. The wife discloses in her financial statement that she receives an average weekly amount of $893 gross.
The husband in the written submission discloses that he has obtained some casual employment however provides no evidence as to the amount of income he receives from that employment.
The husband has re-partnered and lives with his partner on a property owned by her. The husband deposes that he does not pay rent to his new partner however contributes to the relationship and property by maintaining and otherwise working on the property.
The husband alleges that the wife has a new partner and that he lives with the wife.
The wife is absolutely silent as to whether she is in relationship or otherwise.
The evidence does not provide sufficient support for a finding that the wife is currently living in a de facto relationship with a partner or that she is receiving any financial advantage as result of a relationship that she is in.
The wife receives approximately $300 per week by way of Family Tax Benefit and further receives $52 per week by way of child support for both Y and Z.
The wife understood that the husband was earning approximately $160,000 per year working in the (omitted) industry. The husband deposes to the fact that he was required by way of assessment to pay child support in the amount of $300 per week until after he was made redundant.
I am satisfied that the parties had a reasonable source of income throughout their relationship noting that the husband always worked in the (omitted) industry and the wife, but for periods of time off work shortly after the birth of the children, has always worked throughout the relationship, at times on a casual or part-time basis.
The parties always lived in rented accommodation. It is conceded by both the husband and wife that they made poor financial decisions throughout their relationship and as a result did not have any assets of significance at the time of separation. Both parties continue to live in property not owned by themselves.
As previously outlined the husband is cohabiting with another person. There is no evidence before me as to the financial circumstances relating to that cohabitation other than the evidence of the husband that he does not pay rent but otherwise contributes to the property.
The wife will continue to have the full-time care of Z who is currently 11 years old. It is noted that Y is now 18 as at the date of these reasons. In those circumstances the wife may be entitled to a slight adjustment in her favour.
The husband maintains that he has an injury to his lower back which will affect his ability to earn income. There is no other evidence to support that assertion. The husband does not provide any medical reports to assist the Court in making a finding as to his future needs.
In light of the evidence that is before me I am not satisfied that the husband has an injury that will affect his capacity to earn income in the future.
The husband says, and it is agreed, that throughout the relationship he always worked in the (omitted) industry. He asserts that he has no qualifications that would assist him in another industry. I note however that he is currently working on a casual basis however the husband does not disclose in what industry or in what capacity he is working.
The husband asserts that he is working with recruiting agencies in an attempt to find work. Having regard to those facts I cannot make a finding as to whether the husband has a limited capacity for work or otherwise. Accordingly there should be no adjustment in favour of the husband due to a disparity in the parties’ abilities to earn income.
It is the treatment of the redundancy payment, or more particularly the balance thereof sitting at an agreed amount of $76,422 that is the main issue in dispute between the parties.
It is the husband's contention that the redundancy monies were spent reasonably in meeting his living expenses in circumstances where he had no alternative asset or form of income to otherwise meet them. The husband also contends that he spent part of the moneys on legal fees for the proceedings. In those circumstances the husband argues that the balance of the proceeds in the sum of $76,422 agreed upon pursuant to the balance sheet should not be added back as an asset of the parties..
The husband provides evidence that he utilised those funds not only on his own living expenses but also to pay child support and make other financial assistance to the children whilst they were in his care. In those circumstances he says that it would not be just and equitable to make an adjustment in favour of the wife due to his expenditure of those monies.
It is the wife's case that the balance of the redundancy be added back into the pool.
The wife concedes that add backs are very much the exception rather than the rule.
Indeed there was for some time a suggestion that as a result of cases such as Stanford & Stanford[2] and Bevan & Bevan[3] that there would no longer be a discretion to add back notional property into the pool of assets for distribution.
[2] [2012] HCA 52
[3] (2013) FLC 93545
However in Vass & Vass[4] their Honours said
‘There is no error committed per se in adjusting the party's actual property interests by calculation involving notionally adding back into the pool sums which have been dissipated by the parties. We reject any suggestion that the decision of Bevan & Bevan (2013) FLC 93-545 or, more particularly, the decision of the High Court in Stamford and Stanford [2012] HCA 52; (2012) 247 CLR 108-is authority for any necessary contrary solution.’
[4] [2015] FamCAFC 51
It is the wife's contention that the husband's pattern of spending as a whole was reckless, negligent, done so wantonly or otherwise extravagant and incurred unreasonably.
The wife concedes that the husband has disclosed the relevant bank records and that those records do not reveal one specific transaction which was in and of itself reckless, negligent or done so wantonly.
As Murphy J made clear in Challen & Challen[5]“whether any expenditure so incurred is reasonable or extravagant is a matter that can be determined by the trial judge".
[5] [2007] FamCA 1292
Upon assessing the evidence of the parties it is quite clear to me that they enjoyed a relationship where money received by them was spent willingly and at times carelessly. Both parties concede that they made poor financial decisions throughout the relationship and that notwithstanding receiving financial advice from time to time they did not follow such advice.
As a result it is a fact that the parties have no real property to their name but for some assorted chattels. The parties major asset is in the nature of superannuation which fortunately could not be accessed throughout the relationship.
I am of the view that the husband's expenditure of the redundancy money is nothing more than a consistent pattern of spending that occurred throughout the relationship. I cannot find as a result that the husband's pattern of spending as a whole was reckless, negligent, done so wantonly or otherwise extravagant and incurred unreasonably. The husband had no other source of income once he was made redundant until shortly before this matter came to trial.
It is of course a fact that the husband has had the use of that redundancy whilst the wife has not. Post separation the wife received $53,000 by way of an inheritance from her late mother's estate. The husband makes no claim in relation to that inheritance. That is in my view an appropriate concession.
The redundancy received by the husband was made in circumstances where he had worked with that company throughout the relationship. The redundancy payout was calculated in accordance with the years that he had worked. The wife contends that she made a contribution to the redundancy in those circumstances. There is in my view some attraction to that argument.
By accepting that argument it follows that the husband has had the total benefit of monies some of which the wife had an equitable interest in. As I said he has enjoyed the use of that money in a similar fashion to the way in which it would have been spent had the parties remained living together. That use in those circumstances is in my view a relevant section 75(2)(o) matter.
I am satisfied that there should be an adjustment to the wife in those circumstances as a result of the husband's use of that money. As to not make an adjustment would not be just and equitable in my view.
The husband is to receive an amount of money as a result of a long service entitlement. The parties agree that the value of that entitlement is $30,000.
The husband seeks to give to the wife the sum of $24,881 from that sum. The wife seeks the total amount of the long service entitlement.
Where both parties seek an order adjusting the legal right in the long service entitlement I am satisfied that it is just and equitable to do so.
The husband seeks an order transferring the tractor and quad bike to the wife. The wife seeks an order whereby the husband retain the tractor and quad bike and she receive by way of transfer from the husband the caravan.
I am of the view that justice and equity is best served having regard to the use of the husband of the redundancy monies, if the wife receives the caravan and the husband retains the tractor and quad bike.
The Holden (omitted) is on the balance sheet owned by the wife, or at least in her possession, whilst the leasing arrangement is said to be a liability of the husband.
Having regard to section 81 of the Family Law Act and noting my duty to make orders that as far as practicable finally determine the financial relationship between the parties, I am of the view that it is just and equitable for the wife to transfer to the husband all her right title and interest in the Holden (omitted).
In doing so the husband has the benefit of possession and ownership of the Holden and he can either use the vehicle or sell the vehicle and bring down some of the liability in his name.
The parties currently have $92,682 worth of debt. In excess of $80,000 of that debt is in the husband's name. The evidence establishes that the husband and wife made poor financial decisions and I note that the wife contends that the husband was the instigator of those poor decisions and that he would not take financial advice.
It is the husband's evidence that he purchased a (omitted) Vehicle post separation. The parties agree the value of that vehicle is $44,000 and further agree that there is finance over that vehicle of $55,089. This is consistent with the type of financial decision that is apparent on the evidence having been made throughout the relationship.
In the circumstances I am satisfied it is just and equitable for the parties to each retain their own separate liability as evidence in the balance sheet agreed by the parties.
For these reasons I am satisfied it is just and equitable to make the following orders.
I certify that the preceding seventy-six (76) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Middleton
Date: 6 February 2018
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Costs
0
4
2