Marks and Xander
Case
•
[2016] FCCA 282
•15 February 2016
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marks and Xander [2016] FCCA 282
[2016] FCCA 282
15 February 2016
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of *Marks and Xander*, heard by Judge Riethmuller, the court made orders concerning the division of property and superannuation interests between the parties. The dispute involved the payment of a sum of money by the respondent to the applicant, the removal of a caveat lodged by the applicant over a property, and the potential sale of that property. Additionally, the orders addressed the splitting of the respondent's superannuation interest in a specific fund.
The court was required to determine the terms of the property settlement, including the amount to be paid, the conditions for its payment, and the consequences of default. This included specifying the process for the sale of the Property C property, should the respondent fail to make the ordered payment. Furthermore, the court had to address the division of the respondent's superannuation interest pursuant to section 90MT(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, including the operative time for the split and the protection of the applicant's entitlement pending its finalisation.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a sum of $176,463.00 within 60 days, contingent upon the applicant removing a caveat from the Property C property. In the event of default, interest would accrue, and the respondent would be obligated to place the Property C property on the market for sale, with terms to be agreed or determined by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. Upon sale, proceeds were to be applied first to sale costs, then to the outstanding sum owed to the applicant, with any balance to the respondent. The respondent was granted sole occupation of the property pending payment or sale, with responsibility for outgoings. The court also ordered a splittable payment from the respondent's superannuation interest in the specified fund to the applicant, calculated with a base amount of $10,505.00, and imposed restrictions on the respondent regarding his superannuation to protect this entitlement. Each party was otherwise entitled to their other property and responsible for their own liabilities.
The court was required to determine the terms of the property settlement, including the amount to be paid, the conditions for its payment, and the consequences of default. This included specifying the process for the sale of the Property C property, should the respondent fail to make the ordered payment. Furthermore, the court had to address the division of the respondent's superannuation interest pursuant to section 90MT(1) of the *Family Law Act 1975*, including the operative time for the split and the protection of the applicant's entitlement pending its finalisation.
The court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant a sum of $176,463.00 within 60 days, contingent upon the applicant removing a caveat from the Property C property. In the event of default, interest would accrue, and the respondent would be obligated to place the Property C property on the market for sale, with terms to be agreed or determined by the President of the Real Estate Institute of Victoria. Upon sale, proceeds were to be applied first to sale costs, then to the outstanding sum owed to the applicant, with any balance to the respondent. The respondent was granted sole occupation of the property pending payment or sale, with responsibility for outgoings. The court also ordered a splittable payment from the respondent's superannuation interest in the specified fund to the applicant, calculated with a base amount of $10,505.00, and imposed restrictions on the respondent regarding his superannuation to protect this entitlement. Each party was otherwise entitled to their other property and responsible for their own liabilities.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Injunction
-
Costs
-
Jurisdiction
-
Res Judicata
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Marks and Xander [2016] FCCA 282
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
2
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Stanford v Stanford
[2012] HCA 52