MAHON & MAHON

In the matter of MAHON & MAHON, Judge Small considered the division of property between the parties. The dispute concerned the sale of several real properties and the distribution of the proceeds, as well as the allocation of other assets and liabilities.

The court was required to determine the method and terms of the sale of the real properties, including the appointment of an agent, the sale method, the minimum sale price, and the settlement period. Furthermore, the court needed to establish the order of priority for the application of the sale proceeds, including the payment of sale costs, necessary repairs, mortgage discharge, a specific sum to the husband's solicitors, and the apportionment of the remainder between the parties. The court also had to address the husband's sole responsibility for a debt owed to his parents and the removal of a caveat held by them. Finally, the court was tasked with determining the division of other property, the allocation of joint bank accounts, claims to superannuation and inheritances, and liability for existing debts.

Judge Small ordered the immediate listing for sale of the specified real properties, with provisions for agent nomination, sale method, a minimum price of $210,000, and a 60-day settlement period. The proceeds were to be applied first to sale costs and commissions, then to necessary repairs, followed by the discharge of the mortgage. A sum of $11,400 was to be paid to the husband's solicitors in trust for him. The remaining proceeds were to be divided, with 60% allocated to the wife's solicitors in trust for her and 40% to the husband's solicitors in trust for him. The husband was made solely responsible for his debt to his parents and was ordered to ensure the removal of the caveat held by them. The court also ordered that each party would be solely entitled to other property in their possession, joint bank accounts were to be divided 60% to the wife and 40% to the husband, and both parties were to forgo claims to each other's superannuation and inheritances. Each party was to be solely liable for and indemnify the other against liabilities encumbering property they received, and any joint tenancies were expressly severed. The court also took into account the impact of allegations made against the husband, his superannuation entitlements compared to the wife's minimal superannuation and limited earning capacity, and his debt to his parents, ultimately finding that an adjustment of 20% in the wife's favour should be made to the contributions-based entitlements.