Markell and Markell

This matter came before Forrest J for the purpose of amending existing court orders made on 7 August 2018. The dispute concerned the disposition of the I Street property and the financial obligations of the Husband to the Wife, including property settlement payments, child support, and adult child maintenance. The amendments sought to alter the conditions under which the Husband could retain the I Street property and to establish a clear process for its sale if the Husband failed to meet his obligations.

The court was required to determine the specific terms and conditions under which the Husband could retain the I Street property, including the timing and nature of payments and the refinancing of certain debts. It also needed to establish the procedure for the sale of the I Street property should the Husband default on these obligations, including the appointment of agents and solicitors, the method of sale, and the determination of a reserve price. Furthermore, the court had to specify the priority of distribution of the proceeds from any sale of the property and address the discharge of an existing injunction.

Forrest J applied section 79A(1)(c) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to amend the previous orders. The reasoning involved a detailed restructuring of the obligations. The Husband was permitted to retain the I Street property, provided he first paid $150,000 to the Wife, any outstanding child support and adult child maintenance, specific debts to Westpac Banking Corporation exceeding $600,000 on one mortgage and the full amounts on two other Westpac accounts, and legal costs of $43,710.30. The timing for these payments was stipulated, and the Wife was required to release her caveat upon compliance. If the Husband failed to comply within thirty days, the property was to be sold by public auction, with detailed provisions for the appointment of a real estate agent and conveyancing solicitor, the auction process, and the determination of a reserve price, including a mechanism for resolving disputes. The proceeds of sale were to be applied in a specific order of priority, including the repayment of Westpac debts, payments to the Wife, and legal costs, with any balance to the Public Trustee of Queensland. The injunction was to be discharged upon compliance with the payment obligations or completion of the sale.

The court ordered amendments to the existing orders, detailing the conditions for the Husband to retain the I Street property and the comprehensive process for its sale if those conditions were not met. The orders also specified the distribution of sale proceeds and the discharge of an injunction. The Wife was authorised to act on behalf of both parties in relation to certain matters concerning the former matrimonial home and the release of mortgage documents.