Maccaro & Maccaro

In the matter of *Maccaro & Maccaro*, Riley J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia considered an application for property adjustment under s.79 of the *Family Law Act 1975*. The dispute concerned the division of assets between the husband and wife, who had cohabited from 2003 and married in 2003, separating in either 2009 or 2010. The parties had two children, aged 15 and 16, with final parenting orders stipulating the children live with the husband and spend three nights a week with the wife. The husband, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been on a Centrelink disability pension since 2009, while the wife was not employed and had had a disability pension application rejected. The wife alleged significant abuse by the husband, which he denied.

The court was required to determine the appropriate division of the parties' financial resources, including assets and liabilities, in light of their contributions, the duration of the marriage, their respective financial positions, and the impact of the husband's schizophrenia and the alleged abuse. Key issues included the treatment of pre-cohabitation assets of the husband, the disposition of proceeds from the sale of the former family home, the wife's significant borrowings and subsequent sale of a property, and the contributions made by each party both during the marriage and post-separation.

Riley J found that the wife's contributions during the marriage were made more arduous due to the husband's alleged violence and abuse, and the additional care required by his schizophrenia. The court noted the husband's post-separation contributions included meeting mortgage repayments on the former family home and paying for children's expenses when they lived with him. The wife's post-separation contributions included paying rates and taxes on the former family home and meeting the children's basic living expenses until 2016. Despite the wife receiving the proceeds of sale of the former family home, the court reiterated that all assets are subject to division in family law proceedings unless a binding financial agreement exists.

The court ordered that funds remaining in the trust account of Lyttletons Lawyers be distributed as to 60% to the husband and 40% to the wife. The wife was to retain all other assets, liabilities, and financial resources in her name, possession, and control, to the exclusion of the husband, and vice versa. This included provisions for each party to be solely entitled to property in their possession or name, for insurance policies to become the sole property of the named beneficiary, and for each party to be solely liable for and indemnify the other against liabilities and individual debts. Joint tenancies were to be severed, and each party was to be solely entitled to their respective bank accounts and forego claims to the other's superannuation benefits.