MEADE & MURPHY
[2014] FamCA 946
•29 October 2014
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MEADE & MURPHY | [2014] FamCA 946 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY – Where a short marriage relationship – where one child of the relationship – where parties agree that the court should exercise jurisdiction to make adjustive orders – where husband entitled to significant inherited assets at cohabitation – where parties agree that a two pools approach be adopted and where such approach is appropriate – where assessment as to contributions undertaken in relation to each pool – where consideration as to appropriate s 75(2) adjustments – where consideration as to appropriate and just and equitable orders. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss 75(2), 79 |
| Bevan& Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19 Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91 Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877 Scott and Danton (2014) FamCAFC 203 Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52 Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120 |
| APPLICANT: | Ms Meade |
| RESPONDENT: | Mr Murphy |
| FILE NUMBER: | SYC | 866 | of | 2011 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 29 October 2014 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Sydney |
| PLACE HEARD: | Sydney |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Foster J |
| HEARING DATE: | 27 and 28 October 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: | Mr Schonell |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Ms McIntosh |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Peter Cornock & Associates |
Orders
That within three (3) months from the date of these orders the wife pay to the husband $146,108 and in consideration of such payment and upon compliance by the wife with the following order the husband do all necessary things and sign all necessary documents to transfer to the wife his interest in the property comprised in Certificate of Title folio identifier … being unit N Street, Suburb B, New South Wales (“the B property”).
That concurrently with the payment and transfer provided for in Order 1 the wife do all necessary things so as to procure a discharge of the existing mortgage encumbrance secured over the said B property such as to remove the husband from all or any liability in relation to the said mortgage and the husband do all necessary things and sign all necessary documents that may be required to facilitate the wife complying with this order.
That in default of the wife paying to the husband the sum provided for in Order 1 by the due date and unless otherwise agreed between the parties, the husband and wife shall do all necessary things so as to procure a sale of the B property at the best priced reasonably obtainable and upon sale proceeds of sale be applied in the following order and priority:
(a) in payment of agents fees and commission and other properly incurred selling costs,
(b) in payment of legal fees on sale,
(c) in payment of any adjustments necessary on sale pursuant to contract,
(d) in discharge of the mortgage secured against the said property,
(e) in payment to the husband of $146,108 together with interest accrued,
(f) in payment of the balance then remaining to the wife.
That pending sale of the B property the wife pay as they fall due and payable all outgoings in relation to the property including council rates, water rates, strata levies, utilities and mortgage payments.
That the husband indemnify the wife from any liability in relation to the parties joint CBA credit card.
That both parties have liberty to apply as to implementation or enforcement of these orders.
THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT:
That other than provided in the Orders of 29 October 2014 each party shall be the sole owner to the exclusion of the other party of the following:
(a) Any real estate, shareholding, debentures, units in unit trusts, stocks or interest in any company standing in their respective sole names as at the date of making these orders;
(b) Any motor vehicles registered in their respective sole names as at the date of making these orders;
(c) Any interest in any savings accounts, investments or superannuation funds standing in their respective sole names as at the date of making these orders:
(d) Any items of personalty in their respective sole possession as at the date of making these orders.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Meade & Murphy has been approved by the Chief Justice pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
FILE NUMBER: SYC 866 of 2011
| Ms Meade |
Applicant
And
| Mr Murphy |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These proceedings relate to the question of property settlement under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) as between husband and wife.
The primary issues for consideration include:
a)the short period of the parties’ relationship;
b)the assessment of contributions by each of the parties during the period of cohabitation; and
c)whether the assets of the parties should be considered as one single pool or as two separate pools to reflect the inherited assets introduced into the relationship in the United Kingdom and Ireland by the respondent husband.
The section 79 considerations
The approach to the determination of an application under s 79 of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”) is set out in Stanford v Stanford [2012] HCA 52 and further considered by the Full Court in Bevan& Bevan [2014] FamCAFC 19, Chapman & Chapman [2014] FamCAFC 91 and Scott and Danton (2014) FamCAFC 203 (21 October 2014).
The process ordinarily involves a staged process.
The Court must identify the existing legal and equitable interests of the parties in the property, the liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the time of the hearing and then whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order.
Such a consideration should not be guided by an assumption that the parties’ rights to or interests in property are or should be different from those that then exist. The question is whether those rights and interests should be altered.
There is no presumption that one or other party has the right to have the property of the parties divided between them or a right to an interest in marital property that is fixed by reference to the various matters in s 79(4).
The Court needs to conclude that it would be unjust or unfair to leave property rights intact.
In many cases this requirement is readily satisfied where the parties are no longer in a marital or de facto relationship and, thus, for example, the common ownership or use of property by husband and wife will no longer be possible or the express or implicit assumptions that underpinned existing property arrangements such as the accumulation of assets or financial resources by one for the benefit of both have been brought to an end with the relationship.
In particular, such a circumstance arises where both parties seek adjustive orders but are unable to agree as to same. In this matter the parties have a jointly owned property together with other assets. Both parties seek different orders as to the division of their property. It is conceded by counsel for both parties that it is appropriate for the court to make orders altering their present property interests.
Once the s 79(2) issue is resolved the Court then considers the contributions made by the parties as defined in s 79(4)(a) to (c).
The Court must then consider s 79(4)(d) to (g) in particular the subjective considerations as to the parties by having regard to the provisions of s 75(2) in so far as they are relevant (s 79(4)(e)).
The Court can then consider the “justice and equity” of the actual orders to be made: Russell & Russell (1999) FLC 92-877; Teal & Teal [2010] FamCAFC 120, in the context of the Court’s obligation to make “appropriate orders” as provided for in s 79(1) of the Act.
The present pool of assets
The parties were in substantial agreement as to their present assets and liabilities. Some discrete issues remained as to whether some of the parties’ present liabilities should be included and as to whether funds expended by the wife should be notionally included for adjustment purposes.
Those discrete issues will be considered later.
It was agreed that the court should consider the assets and liabilities of the parties in the context of two separate pools to reflect the husband’s inherited properties that are considered below. Such an approach by reason of the disparate contribution considerations of each proposed pool is appropriate.
The present assets and liabilities of the parties comprising the two agreed pools for the purposes of adjustment are as follows:
Pool A: Inherited Pool
Assets:
Husband UK Property $336,758
HusbandIrish Property $122,548
$459,306
Liabilities:
Husband Mortgage UK $123,943
Husband Mortgage Ireland $ 36,218
$160,161
Net:$299,145
Pool B: Matrimonial Pool
Assets:
Joint B property $825,000
WifeHousehold contents $ 3,000
WifeNetsaver account $ 5
WifeComplete access account $ 7,566
WifePersonalty $ 1,000
WifeSUN super $ 30,217
HusbandANZ bank account $ 1,600
HusbandBank of Ireland bank account $ 735
HusbandBarclays bank account $ 463
HusbandCBA smart access account $ 1
Husbandmotor vehicle $ 8,000
Husbandhousehold contents, personalty $ 2,500
HusbandE trade shares $ 80
Husband Loan to wife’s brother $ 2,135
Husband X Superannuation Fund $ 94,180
$976,482
Liabilities:
JointB mortgage $434,930
Net$541,552
Various other liabilities of the husband and wife incurred post separation and an old student loan debt of the wife were by agreement excluded from the asset pool for adjustment purposes.
Several issues remained in relation to the makeup of the pool for adjustment purposes:
a)Funds retained by the wife: at about the time of separation the wife sold the parties’ V Investments shareholding for $11,619, withdrew $2,200 cash from the parties’ joint credit card and withdrew from the joint home loan and the associated offset account $17,166. These funds totalling $30,985 are sought to be notionally included in the pool of assets for adjustment purposes as between the parties by the husband. Subsequent to separation and until she obtained full-time employment as referred to below the wife was dependent upon government benefits and spousal maintenance and child support payments from the husband. Her evidence is that the majority of funds withdrawn by her were expended by her in legal fees early in the proceedings. Those proceedings related to her application for financial support from the husband and an ongoing obligation on him to meet mortgage payments and property outgoings in the home occupied by her and the child. Otherwise the balance of funds retained by her were expended on expenses for herself and child post separation. In circumstances where the husband continued post separation in full-time employment, paid a capital sum from a tax refund in respect of his legal fees of $5,000 and thereafter made regular payments in respect of his legal fees from income with his paid legal fees at the date of trial being about $25,000, it is not appropriate to add back into the pool for adjustment the funds retained by the wife.
b)Husband CBA joint credit card of $6,551: The husband still retains the parties’ joint CBA credit card. He contended that the outstanding balance on that credit card as at the date of the trial in the sum of $6,551 should be included as a liability of his in the asset pool for consideration. Copies of credit card statements relied upon by him (Exh M) reveal an outstanding balance on that credit card as at separation of $5,219. The husband elected to pay minimum payments only on the card since separation. A modest increase in payments over the three years plus to trial would likely have paid off the debt. In circumstances where the wife has now met mortgage payments on the B home for over two years thus preserving the husband’s equity in the property, it is proper that the husband meet the outstanding credit card balance. This joint liability will be excluded from the matrimonial pool for adjustment and he will be required to indemnify the wife in relation to any liability in respect of the debt.
The cohabitation
The wife at trial was aged 35 and the husband aged 42. The wife was born in London and the husband in Ireland.
The parties commenced cohabitation in 2005 in rented premises.
During the period of the parties’ relationship the husband has been in full-time employment as a teacher and otherwise. The husband remains in full-time employment on a salary of about $117,000 per annum plus superannuation. He is presently employed on contract with that contract to end in January 2015. Thereafter it is his reasonable expectation that he will be able to return to teaching at a salary in the range of $105,000-$110,000 per annum by reason of his seniority.
The wife at the commencement of the parties’ cohabitation worked through various recruitment and acting agencies until October 2006 at which time she obtained full-time employment until March 2009. The wife fell pregnant with the child of the marriage in mid-2009 and continued to work for a period during her pregnancy. After the birth of the child she did not work until she returned to full-time employment until July 2012. She remains in full-time employment earning an annual salary of about $72,000 per annum including superannuation.
The parties married in 2008. At the time of marriage the parties received a gift of $7,000 from the wife’s parents with the funds being deposited to the parties’ joint savings account.
The parties finally separated in January 2011 but remained under the one roof in the matrimonial home at Suburb B until May 2011.
The only child of their marriage, Y, was born in 2010.
After the birth of the child the wife assumed the role of primary care giver for the child and the husband remained in full-time employment. The husband assisted with childcare as his full-time employment obligations permitted. The child lives primarily with the wife and the husband has time with the child as provided for in final parenting orders as made by consent on 28 October 2013. The child presently attends preschool kindergarten five days per week and is enrolled to commence a primary school in the 2015 academic year. The home presently occupied by the wife at Suburb B is only a short distance from the child’s proposed school.
At the commencement of the parties’ cohabitation the wife had modest savings. The husband has a 76.8 per cent interest in a property in the UK. The property was subject to mortgage. The property at all relevant times has been tenanted with rental income derived therefrom applied to mortgage payments and other outgoings.
Otherwise the husband had savings of about $7,000 or $8,000, a car and a modest accrued superannuation entitlement as at December 2005 of $8,400.
At the commencement of cohabitation the husband had an expectancy in relation to his late grandmother’s estate. The estate was finally administered in about September 2008 and at that time legal title to an unencumbered property in Ireland was transferred to the husband and he received a monetary distribution of €18,195. The property was tenanted.
The B property and thereafter
The parties in about February 2007 opened a joint savings account. After the husband received his cash inheritance the parties applied those funds together with monies saved by them and the wedding gift from the wife’s parents in the joint savings account to the purchase of a property at Suburb B.
The property was purchased for $503,500 in December 2008. The purchase price comprised a mortgage advance, the first home owners grant received by the parties, the inherited funds available to the husband and money standing to the credit of the parties’ joint savings account.
From February 2007 until purchase of the B property the parties deposited their income or portions thereof to the joint savings account. There is no issue that over this period the husband’s income was superior to that of the wife and that their combined incomes were used to meet their rented living expenses and to accumulate in the joint savings account. At the time of purchase the parties’ accumulated savings in the joint account was about $23,358.
After purchase both parties undertook work in the repair and renovation of the B property.
The husband’s inheritance of $19,350 formed part of the money applied to the purchase. After the deposit of these funds to the joint account the balance of the joint account was $42,708. Otherwise funds applied to the purchase comprised $14,000 received by the parties as first home owners grant.
The inference is that a significant portion of funds available for the deposit for the purchase of the B property comprised the husband’s inheritance.
Subsequent to purchase the parties’ incomes were combined to meet mortgage payments, property outgoings and their respective living expenses. Until the wife ceased employment prior to the birth of the parties’ child there is no issue that the husband’s income significantly exceeded that of the wife.
Following the purchase of the B property and in April 2009 the husband raised a mortgage on his Irish property and transferred $216,612 from that mortgage to a mortgage offset account in relation to the B mortgage. Interest on the mortgage offset account was credited as against interest on the parties’ joint mortgage borrowing secured against the B property to the effect that there was an interest saving of about $1,000 per month. This saving continued from April 2009 until January 2011.
The mortgage offset account remained in place from April 2009 until about 6 January 2011 when funds then remaining in that account were remitted back to Ireland by the husband in partial discharge of the mortgage secured over the Irish property. The parties used portion of the funds raised by the husband’s mortgage borrowing on various purchases and expenditure as follows:
Purchase of the car retained by husband $17,230
Purchase of leather sofa retained by wife $ 4,850
Kitchen renovations $15,000
Purchase of the V Investments share portfolio later
sold by the wife $10,000
Funds returned to Ireland to pay for repairs and
Maintenance on the property $10,300
Funds deposited directly into the mortgage account $ 5,000
Loan to the wife’s brother $ 2,135
$64,515
Separation
At the time of separation and on 6 January 2011 the husband withdrew the then balance of the mortgage offset account of $140,000 (about €100,000), remitted those funds to Ireland in partial reduction of €90,000 of the outstanding mortgage on the Irish property and in repayment of the sum of €10,000 owed by him to his sister relating to funds expended by her in relation to the Irish property over a period of time.
At the time of the removal of funds to Ireland a balance of $24,821 remained as available funds in the parties’ joint accounts.
The husband transferred $5,219 from the joint mortgage offset account to payment of the parties’ joint credit card, subsequent to which the wife withdrew $2,200 cash from that credit card. The retention of these funds by the wife is referred to above.
The wife thereafter withdrew $17,166 representing the balance of the mortgage offset account and funds available by way of redraw on the joint home loan account and those funds were applied by her as referred to above.
The husband in February 2011 ceased making deposits of his salary to the joint account and diverted salary payments to his own account. The wife commenced to receive supporting parents benefit payments to meet the living expenses for herself and the child.
Subsequently the wife sold the parties’ V Investments share portfolio for $11,620 and those funds were retained by her as referred to above.
On 16 May 2011 the husband was ordered to vacate the property and to pay mortgage payments and other outgoings in relation to the property and periodic spousal maintenance payments for the wife’s support.
In April 2012 the wife commenced making the mortgage payments on the B property.
At the time of separation the wife had not resumed employment and she did not do so until mid-2012. The wife recommenced full-time employment on a salary package of $68,000 per annum.
She has continued to meet the obligation to make mortgage payments and property outgoing payments in relation to the property that continues to be occupied by her and the child up to trial. She seeks to retain the property.
Once the wife returned to full-time employment she met significant child-care payments that facilitated her doing so without contribution from the husband.
In mid-February 2012 after the husband ceased making mortgage and other payments in relation to the B property the wife obtained an assessment of child support from the child support agency and as at the date of the trial the husband’s child support payments were up to date. The husband’s present rate of child support is $268 per week. He makes no contribution to the cost of child care that facilitates the wife remaining in full-time employment. Her net child care costs after rebates are about $300 per week.
The inherited pool
The inherited pool of assets owned by the husband as set out above comprised two real estate properties, one in the United Kingdom and one in Ireland.
The property in the United Kingdom has continued to be rented during the parties’ relationship. At present the income from rent approximates the payments in relation to outgoings including mortgage, insurances, strata and management fees. It is to be inferred that into the future as the mortgage obligation diminishes with ongoing payments ultimately there may be an available surplus income stream available to the husband.
The Irish property has fallen into some disrepair and as a consequence the tenant has recently vacated the property. The Irish property otherwise had been rented since the husband became entitled. The husband’s proposal is to remediate the property over a period of time with the intention once again to relet the property and he expects that he may well be able to do so within the next 12 months.
The wife’s mother arranged for some maintenance to be carried out on the husband’s UK property on his behalf and her mother and father also undertook some management obligations in relation to the property until the parties’ separation in January 2011 at which time the husband appointed a third party to manage the property.
The husband’s sister assisted him in relation to the management of the Irish property.
Some funds that had been remitted from Ireland by the husband were later returned to Ireland to meet expenses as referred to above. Otherwise sums totalling about $4,000 were remitted to the United Kingdom to meet certain expenses in relation to the United Kingdom property. These funds came from the parties’ joint account referred to above.
The parties’ proposals
The wife at the commencement of the trial sought property adjustment orders that in summary provide that the husband transfer to her the property at Suburb B and concurrently with that transfer the wife refinance the present mortgage secured on that property. The wife further sought that there be no splitting order relating to the party’s accumulated superannuation entitlements and that the husband indemnify her from any joint credit card liabilities outstanding.
The husband at the commencement of the trial sought property adjustment orders that in summary provided for a sale of the B property and that after payment of sale costs, discharge of mortgage, any adjustments on settlement and payment of certain other various liabilities of the husband and the parties’ joint CBA credit card liability that the net balance then remaining be paid as to 64 per cent to the husband from which he pay to the wife the sum of $3,979.42 and then 36 per cent to the wife. Otherwise the husband sought no other adjustive orders.
Contributions - matrimonial pool
It is conceded by the wife that contributions must favour the husband.
In reality the contribution-based history of the parties did not commence until shortly before the purchase of the property at Suburb B. There is no evidence that assists the court as to what resources available to the parties at the time of cohabitation remained in existence at the time the parties commenced joint savings save for the husband’s initial accumulated modest superannuation entitlement. The parties commenced to accumulate saved income in the joint savings account and those savings were enhanced significantly by the cash component of the husband’s Irish inheritance as referred to above and to an extent by the wedding gift to the parties.
Hence the husband’s contribution to the available deposit monies used for the purchase of the B property was more significant than that of the wife. Following purchase of the property the husband’s income at all times exceeded the wife’s income in circumstances where the parties met their ongoing joint obligations for living expenses and outgoings in relation to the home from their combined income.
The wife ceased employment prior to the birth of the parties’ child and thereafter assumed the role of primary care giver whilst the husband remained in full-time employment. The period from shortly prior to the birth of the child until separation in those circumstances can be seen as a period of equal contribution.
Subsequent to separation the wife remained the primary carer of the child with the husband making a significant ongoing financial contribution until the wife commenced to make mortgage payments in relation to the home in April 2012. Until April 2012 there again is little to distinguish the contributions of the parties.
From April 2012 until trial the wife has continued to assume the primary care burden for the parties’ young child, particularly in circumstances where she has had to incur significant child care expenses simply to facilitate her returning to employment. She has otherwise continued to meet mortgage payments and property outgoings in relation to the primary asset of the parties without contribution from the husband whose only financial contribution was reduced to periodic child support payments. The wife has continued to enjoy the sole use and occupation of the B home to the exclusion of the husband.
The B property has increased in value significantly since its purchase in December 2008, mostly it appears by reason of general increases in the Sydney property market as neither party makes any assertion as to any contribution that would have significantly increased the value of the property.
Both parties acknowledge that in this short marriage circumstance non-financial contributions of the parties have at best modest significance.
Both parties concede that superannuation entitlements at trial should be included in the matrimonial pool for adjustment as save for the husband’s modest entitlement at cohabitation there is no significant contribution-based disparity in relation to superannuation.
Otherwise the parties have had the benefit of the interest saving by reason of the mortgage offset account that comprised the husband’s Irish funds. The parties further had access to some of the capital of those funds for various purposes as referred to above.
Overall contributions to the matrimonial pool having a value of $541,552 should favour the husband. An adjustment in his favour of 10 per cent will create a disparity of about $108,000 between the parties. Contributions are assessed as favouring the husband as to 60 per cent and as to the wife 40 per cent.
Contributions - inherited pool
Both parties concede that contributions in relation to this pool must overwhelmingly favour the husband. The nature of contributions made by or on behalf of the wife are referred to above. Contributions are to be assessed in a holistic fashion. The pool has a net value of about $300,000. A modest 5 per cent adjustment to reflect same would see the wife entitled to about $15,000 and the husband entitled to the overwhelming balance.
Contributions will thus be assessed as to the husband 95 per cent and to the wife 5 per cent.
Section 75(2) considerations
The present circumstances of the parties are referred to above.
As to the inherited real estate pool, there are no starkly relevant factors such as would, for example, particularly relate to a discrete superannuation pool. In circumstances where the financial resource represented by the husband’s inherited assets is a relevant factor in considering any further adjustment to the matrimonial pool no further adjustment to the contribution based finding is called for.
As to the matrimonial pool, both parties are relatively young and assert no health issues.
The property and financial resources of the parties are set out above. Other than the matrimonial pool the husband has significant property in terms of his inherited pool. The wife has no such resource.
The husband’s income significantly exceeds that of the wife and notwithstanding the proposed change in the nature of his employment will continue to do so.
The wife will have the primary care of the young child of the parties with the husband to have reasonable expanding time with the child pursuant to final parenting orders.
The wife’s income is modest and she will incur child care costs to permit her to continue in full time employment subject to any adverse issue relating to the child.
The husband’s child support obligation will be as assessed from time to time. There is no reason to suggest that he will not continue to pay his assessment. The wife, if circumstances permit, can make application for departure from assessment where appropriate.
Both parties have modest superannuation. No splitting orders are sought. Both parties will continue to accrue superannuation with ongoing employment but the husband by reason of income disparity will accrue at a higher rate than the wife. The wife receives a modest government parenting benefit.
The wife seeks to retain the home and thus her standard of accommodation enjoyed during the relationship.
Proposed s 79 orders will see the wife have the opportunity to acquire the B home. Otherwise, it will be sold with funds distributed.
There are no other factors contended as relevant by either party.
Counsel for the wife contended for a 10 per cent s 75(2) adjustment. In the circumstances where that would create a disparity of about $108,000 between the parties such adjustment is proper having regard to the above considerations.
Proposed orders do not impact on the earning capacity of either party.
Overall
The wife is entitled to a cash adjustment of $15,000 in relation to the inherited pool.
The matrimonial pool is to be divided equally as a result of the s 75(2) adjustment to the contribution based findings. The wife is entitled to in monetary terms $270,776, say $270,750.
The wife seeks to retain the home. The question is what she needs to pay to the husband.
The payment is calculated as follows:
Wife retains:
B property equity $390,070
Household contents $ 3,000
Netsaver account $ 5
Complete access account $ 7,566
Personalty$ 1,000
SUN super$ 30,217
$431,878
Wife’s entitlement $270,750
Payment to husband $161,108
Less inherited pool entitlement $ 15,000
Balance to husband $146,108
The husband will otherwise retain:
ANZ bank account $ 1,600
Bank of Ireland bank account $ 735
Barclays bank account $ 463
CBA smart access account $ 1
Motor vehicle $ 8,000
Household contents, personalty $ 2,500
E trade shares $ 80
Loan to wife’s brother $ 2,135
X Superannuation Fund $ 94,180
Payment from wife $146,108
and his inherited pool.
The result in all the circumstances is appropriate and just and equitable.
The wife seeks orders that would facilitate her acquiring the B property. She has a demonstrable capacity to refinance the existing mortgage sufficient to make a modest payment to the husband and will need to rely upon other resources, presumably her family to meet the balance of the payment to the husband.
In such circumstances it was put to counsel for both parties that the wife should be permitted a reasonable time to make finance arrangements and in default the property will be sold with the husband to receive his agreed payment plus interest if any and the wife to take the risk in relation to the ultimate sale price and sale costs. Neither counsel opposed such orders. With the Christmas period approaching, in all the circumstances it would be appropriate to allow the wife three months to make appropriate finance arrangements. In circumstances where the wife is being given an indulgence to seek to retain the property such orders are appropriate.
Orders will thus be made accordingly as set out at the forefront of these reasons for judgement.
I certify that the preceding ninety-six (96) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Foster delivered on 29 October 2014.
Associate:
Date: 29 October 2014
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Property Law
-
Contract Law
Legal Concepts
-
Consent
-
Remedies
-
Costs
0
4
1