Marley & Ormonde
Case
•
[2021] FamCA 105
•11 March 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Marley & Ormonde [2021] FamCA 105
[2021] FamCA 105
11 March 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved Ms Marley (the applicant wife) and Mr Ormonde and Ms Ormonde (the first and second respondents, husband and mother) and Mr B Ormonde (the third respondent, husband's brother). The dispute concerned the beneficial interests in the former matrimonial home, the Suburb F property, which was registered in the husband's sole name. The wife sought to set aside agreements relating to funds advanced by the third parties towards the property, while the third parties asserted equitable interests in the property. The court was required to determine whether these third parties held an equitable interest in the property, either through express, resulting, or constructive trusts, or were entitled to an equitable lien or charge. The resolution of these discrete issues was necessary to ascertain the asset pool available for distribution between the husband and wife.
The court considered whether the husband held portions of his interest in the Suburb F property on express trust for the second and third respondents, and whether the third parties were entitled to an equitable lien or charge. The wife had also applied under s 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to set aside agreements purportedly executed by the third parties and the husband concerning monies advanced for the property. The court's reasoning focused on the objective manifestation of intention to create a trust, particularly in the context of family dealings, and the evidence presented regarding contributions to the purchase price.
McClelland DCJ declared that the third respondent, Mr B Ormonde, held a beneficial interest in the Suburb F property by way of a resulting trust, to the extent of his contribution of $780,000 towards the purchase price. However, the precise proportion of this interest could not be determined at that stage and would require further consideration. All other claims by the wife and the second respondent were dismissed. The matter was listed for directions regarding the further progress of the proceedings.
The court considered whether the husband held portions of his interest in the Suburb F property on express trust for the second and third respondents, and whether the third parties were entitled to an equitable lien or charge. The wife had also applied under s 106B of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) to set aside agreements purportedly executed by the third parties and the husband concerning monies advanced for the property. The court's reasoning focused on the objective manifestation of intention to create a trust, particularly in the context of family dealings, and the evidence presented regarding contributions to the purchase price.
McClelland DCJ declared that the third respondent, Mr B Ormonde, held a beneficial interest in the Suburb F property by way of a resulting trust, to the extent of his contribution of $780,000 towards the purchase price. However, the precise proportion of this interest could not be determined at that stage and would require further consideration. All other claims by the wife and the second respondent were dismissed. The matter was listed for directions regarding the further progress of the proceedings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Equity & Trusts
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Constructive Trust
-
Fiduciary Duty
-
Costs
-
Proportionality
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Marley & Ormonde [2021] FamCA 105
Most Recent Citation
Raso & Raso [2022] FedCFamC1F 336
Cases Cited
37
Statutory Material Cited
6
Marley & Ormonde
[2020] FamCA 784
Traxys Europe SA v Balaji Coke Industry Pvt Ltd
[2011] FCA 1132
Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd v Tsai
[2004] NSWSC 745