MACEY & MACEY

The case of Macey & Macey involved a property settlement dispute between Ms Macey (the applicant wife) and Mr Macey (the respondent husband) before the Family Court of Australia. The primary dispute concerned the division of the former matrimonial home and other assets, with allegations of drug and alcohol use by the husband raised by the wife. The court was also required to consider the division of superannuation entitlements and the opportunity for the wife to purchase the husband's interest in the former matrimonial home.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate adjustment to contributions based on the alleged drug and alcohol use of the husband, assessing the valuations of the parties' assets, and deciding whether an adjustment in favour of the wife was warranted for future needs. Furthermore, the court had to determine the terms under which the wife could acquire the husband's interest in the former matrimonial home, including the valuation and payment mechanisms, and the process for sale if an agreement could not be reached. The court also considered the division of superannuation entitlements and the appropriate method for achieving this.

Collier J applied the principles of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to the division of property. The court noted the husband's dilatory conduct and lack of legal representation as disadvantages. While the wife alleged drug and alcohol use by the husband, the court did not make a specific adjustment for this in its final orders, focusing instead on the agreed valuations and the parties' stated positions. The court ordered that the wife pay the husband a specified sum to acquire his interest in the former matrimonial home within six weeks. If payment was not made, the property was to be sold by private treaty, with a fallback to public auction if private sale failed within four months. The proceeds of sale were to be distributed according to a specified percentage, with the wife receiving 60.25% of the balance after expenses and mortgage repayment. The court also made a superannuation splitting order, entitling the wife to 50% of the husband's splittable superannuation payments.

The court made detailed orders regarding the sale of the former matrimonial home, including provisions for agent and solicitor appointment if the parties could not agree, and the establishment of a reserve price for auction. The court also ordered the husband to be restrained from dealing with his superannuation interest in a way that would defeat the wife's entitlement. Finally, the court ordered the return of the husband's possessions held by the wife and declared that, subject to the foregoing orders, each party was entitled to all other property in their possession. All outstanding applications and cross-applications were dismissed.