Layman and Louise

This matter concerned property adjustment proceedings between a husband and wife, Benjamin J presiding. The parties, both citizens of the United States, married in 1984 and separated in April 2002, with the marriage being dissolved in May 2005. The proceedings were commenced in the Family Court in August 2004. The parties had moved to Tasmania in 2001, purchasing a property there, after which the wife continued to reside in Tasmania while the husband returned to the United States. The wife had worked in welfare services until 1989, and the husband was a retired civil servant. There were no children of the marriage.

The court was required to determine the identity and value of the parties' property and liabilities, assess their respective contributions to the marriage, and consider other relevant factors, including the financial circumstances of each party, to make a just and equitable distribution of their assets. Specific issues included the treatment of substantial stock market gifts received from the wife's brother and bequests received by the husband, and how these should be credited as contributions or otherwise dealt with.

Benjamin J applied the four-step approach to property matters under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975, which involves identifying and valuing property, assessing contributions, considering other relevant factors including s 75(2) matters, and finally resolving what orders are just and equitable. The court considered the whole of the parties' property, however and whenever acquired, and emphasised the obligation of full and frank financial disclosure. The court also noted that s 79 requires consideration of all property, even if parties only seek an alteration of interest in some of it.

The court ordered the husband to transfer his interest in the Tasmanian property and two vehicles to the wife, and to pay her a sum of $528.00. Upon this payment, the wife was to assign her interest in various bank accounts and brokerage accounts to the husband. The court declared that the funds in these accounts were the property of the husband as against the wife. The wife was ordered to indemnify the husband for certain credit card liabilities, and the husband was ordered to indemnify the wife for a taxation liability in America. Each party was to retain other property in their possession or control, and the matter was removed from the list of cases requiring determination.