Leppin and Delorenzo
Case
•
[2019] FCCA 345
•21 February 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Leppin and Delorenzo [2019] FCCA 345
[2019] FCCA 345
21 February 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this matter before Judge Monahan, the dispute concerned the division of property between the Applicant Wife and the Respondent Husband. The primary focus of the proceedings was the sale of the former matrimonial home and the distribution of its proceeds, alongside other assets and liabilities.
The court was required to determine the terms of the sale of the former matrimonial home, including the timeframe for sale, the method of sale, and the agreed minimum sale price. Further issues included the allocation of sale expenses, the distribution of the net proceeds between the parties, and the ongoing responsibility for council and water rates until the sale. The court also had to address the division of superannuation entitlements and other property, as well as the potential for one party to be appointed to execute documents on behalf of the other if they refused to do so.
The court ordered that the former matrimonial home be sold by private treaty within 56 days, with the Applicant appointing the agent and the Respondent appointing the conveyancer. The sale price was to be mutually agreed, or if agreement could not be reached, it was to be no less than the market value determined by a mutually agreed registered valuer, or failing that, a valuer nominated by the president of the Australian Property Institute's New South Wales Division. The net proceeds were to be applied first to sale expenses, then usual rate adjustments, with the balance divided such that the Applicant Wife received 58% and an additional sum of $16,934, and the Respondent Husband received the remainder. The Applicant was to continue paying rates and instalments until the sale. The parties were to retain their respective superannuation entitlements and all other property in their possession, title, or name, and were to indemnify each other against personal liabilities. The Registrar was appointed to execute documents if a party refused, and all extant applications, except for any application for costs to be filed within 28 days, were dismissed.
The court was required to determine the terms of the sale of the former matrimonial home, including the timeframe for sale, the method of sale, and the agreed minimum sale price. Further issues included the allocation of sale expenses, the distribution of the net proceeds between the parties, and the ongoing responsibility for council and water rates until the sale. The court also had to address the division of superannuation entitlements and other property, as well as the potential for one party to be appointed to execute documents on behalf of the other if they refused to do so.
The court ordered that the former matrimonial home be sold by private treaty within 56 days, with the Applicant appointing the agent and the Respondent appointing the conveyancer. The sale price was to be mutually agreed, or if agreement could not be reached, it was to be no less than the market value determined by a mutually agreed registered valuer, or failing that, a valuer nominated by the president of the Australian Property Institute's New South Wales Division. The net proceeds were to be applied first to sale expenses, then usual rate adjustments, with the balance divided such that the Applicant Wife received 58% and an additional sum of $16,934, and the Respondent Husband received the remainder. The Applicant was to continue paying rates and instalments until the sale. The parties were to retain their respective superannuation entitlements and all other property in their possession, title, or name, and were to indemnify each other against personal liabilities. The Registrar was appointed to execute documents if a party refused, and all extant applications, except for any application for costs to be filed within 28 days, were dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Property Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Remedies
-
Jurisdiction
-
Injunction
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Leppin and Delorenzo [2019] FCCA 345
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
2
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52
Hickey & Hickey
[2003] FamCA 395
Bevan & Bevan
[2013] FamCAFC 116