Menkens and Stephens
[2008] FMCAfam 1111
•31 October 2008
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MENKENS & STEPHENS | [2008] FMCAfam 1111 |
| FAMILY LAW – Children’s and property issues – father’s business growing significantly during the relationship – consideration of spend time issues – consideration of s.75(2) matters – spousal maintenance. |
| Family Law Act 1975, ss.60CC, 60CC(2), 60CC(3), 75(2) |
| Applicant: | MS MENKENS |
| Respondent: | MR STEPHENS |
| File Number: | MLC 1784 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Burchardt FM |
| Hearing date: | 11 September 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 September 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 31 October 2008 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Ms R. Stoikovska |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Kelly & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms M.L. Smallwood |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Pearsons Barristers & Solicitors |
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Menkens & Stephens is approved pursuant to s.121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLC 1784 of 2008
| MS MENKENS |
Applicant
And
| MR STEPHENS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The main issues in this case are:
a)whether [X], the child of the relationship, born in 2005, should spend three nights out of 14 or four nights out of 14 with her father; and
b)who gets how much of the pool of assets owned by the parties.
For the reasons that follow, I think that [X] should spend three nights out of 14 with her father until she reaches the age of four and thereafter should spend four nights out of 14 with him. It should be noted that both parties agree that, regrettable as it is, the issue of [X]'s spend‑time regime will need to be revisited as she approaches school age.
Further, I am of the view that in the ultimate, the Applicant mother should receive 70 per cent of the pool of the parties' assets.
Introductory - Agreed Facts
The mother was born in 1965 and is presently 43 years old. The father was born in 1972 and is 36 years old. Both had been in prior marriages.
The parties commenced to cohabit in about March 2004 and the mother ceased work in about May 2005, pending [X]'s birth.
The parties married in February 2006 and separated in 2007. Although there was some argument as to when separation finally took place, in the ultimate in my view nothing turns on this although the narrative set out below will hopefully explain the confusion.
At the time of the commencement of the relationship, the mother possessed a number of paintings worth approximately $20,000.00 but was otherwise without assets.
The Respondent father had an interest in racehorses, the value of which is to an extent in issue. He also possessed household furniture and, more importantly, an interest in a business called [G] Pty Ltd.
The parties presently have superannuation of $21,000.00 (mother) and $59,000.00 (father). Neither party seeks a splitting order.
Children's Issues
It should be noted at the outset that this case involves two parents with strikingly bitter attitudes towards one another. The case was conducted, no doubt on instructions, in the most vitriolic way. Neither party was in any way loath to calumny the other either in their evidence or in the way they were put to cross‑examination.
Given the very extensive credit issues that the case involves, it will, very regrettably, be necessary to make specific adverse findings against each of the primary witnesses.
It should also be noted that although self‑evidently children's issues and property issues are discrete, because of the way the evidence was presented some of the evidence that needs to be determined is relevant to both issues.
It appears that Ms Menkens was previously married to somebody who was an Olympic [omitted] player. She regarded that person, and indeed herself, as having been of a higher social status than Mr Stephens. This condescending snobbishness, which can only be said to be very unattractive, is not only reflected in the affidavit material but is confirmed by what Ms Menkens said to Ms Dockeary, who prepared the family report.
Ms Dockeary noted that Ms Menkens "uses the terms 'town/country' to describe the parties' differences; seeming to imply that she is sophisticated and Mr Stephens is not."
From the commencement of the relationship both parties worked. Despite endeavours in the witness box by the father to qualify his earlier evidence, it is clear from his affidavits that he worked flat out and full‑time in his business.
The mother also worked, as I have said, until shortly before the birth of [X] in 2005. Ms Menkens has a background in [omitted] and her salary during this period was of the order of $55,000.00 per year. Following [X]’s birth, Ms Menkens remained the primary carer for [X] as she remained at home full‑time.
I repeat that while the father was obviously doing as much as he reasonably could to assist, I have no difficulty in finding that he was not the primary caregiver. The success of his business, a matter to which I shall return later, makes it more probable than otherwise that he was very heavily involved in running it, notwithstanding that he obviously loved and still loves his daughter very much.
In or about May 2006 the parties bought what is now the former matrimonial home in [suburb omitted]. I will return to the contributions made by the parties to that purchase in due course.
In September 2007 the father vacated the matrimonial home for 10 days; he returned on 12 September 2007. He did so because Dr U, Ms Menkens' treating doctor, telephoned him advising that
Ms Menkens was likely to be admitted to hospital for some time as a result of mental illness. This was indeed the case. Ms Menkens was plainly unwell. It should be noted that the depressive incident took place in September 2007.
From what the mother told Dr E, who conducted a psychiatric assessment of her in May 2008, Ms Menkens began to feel different within two months. She felt less depressed and tearful and started to feel better (Dr E's report, page 6). The picture that emerges from the account given by Ms Menkens to Dr E is that, while she was very unwell in September, she started to feel substantially better within two months which, it should be noted, would be around about mid‑November.
There is no doubt that one of the strains between the parties was the perception of the relationship between Mr Stephens and his mother held by Ms Menkens. She gave a history to Dr E and also to Ms Dockeary making that entirely clear and that was plainly her evidence before the Court both in affidavits and in the way her case was conducted generally.
Her attitude towards the paternal grandmother is most clearly shown by a tape‑recording made by the father on 7 December 2007. By this stage the parties were to all effects separated, since from November onwards the father had been staying away from the home for several nights a week and the parties were no longer living as man and wife.
The conversation of 7 December 2007 cannot be ignored. While
Ms Menkens readily acknowledged that "it was an extremely regrettable incident," she had little alternative but to make that concession. While the Court would naturally prefer not to have to traverse the sort of material the tape‑recording shows, it is not possible to do so given the matters in issue in this case.
The father asserts, and I believe him, that he told the mother he was going to make the recording.
I do not propose to trawl through the entirety of the disgraceful outpouring of insult and bitterness that the tape represents; the less said about it the better. For these purposes, it is sufficient to note that:
a)Ms Menkens insulted Mr Stephens' mother in the most offensive terms despite the fact that her appalling language was being expressed directly in the presence of [X];
b)the insults addressed to Mr Stephens' mother by Ms Menkens were expressed in terms designed also to humiliate and insult him;
c)Ms Menkens inferred that Mr Stephens had had an incestuous relationship with his mother;
d)Ms Menkens went on to assert Mr Stephens' persona was such that he was incapable of having a proper relationship with any woman;
e)
Ms Menkens said that Mr Stephens might abuse [X] and that
Mr Stephens was mentally unwell;
f)
Ms Menkens proposed to change her child's name to
[X Menkens] (and she caused the child to sing this out loud in the father's presence).
It is particularly disconcerting to note that the child was clearly distressed by this business of her change of name. I notice on the last page of transcript [X] says "I'm not [X]."
This outrageous outpouring of spleen and spite could only have been extremely distressing to [X]. It speaks volumes for the unpreparedness of Ms Menkens to foster and foment a good relationship not only between the father and [X] but between the father's family and [X].
While counsel suggested that this incident should be seen in the context of Ms Menkens' depression, the medical history given by her does not support this assertion. It seems more probable to me than otherwise, given the terms of the outpourings, that she was drunk to a point where she was disinhibited.
It should also be noted that in giving her evidence Ms Menkens presented with the same somewhat cold and disaffected demeanour remarked upon by Ms Dockeary. At page 7 of her report Ms Dockeary noted:
“As it stands, however, Ms Menkens does acknowledge the child's good relationship with Mr Stephens. She does not, however, acknowledge the child's relationship with the paternal family, and, in particular, Ms Menkens' strong views in opposition to the paternal grandmother, might even preclude this.
Indeed Ms Menkens demonstrated very detached emotional effect; both towards her former partner and his family.”
Those observations of Ms Dockeary entirely coincide with my own assessment of Ms Menkens. Additionally, I should make it clear that I found Ms Menkens an unsatisfactory witness. She was often slow to respond and unresponsive when she did finally answer questions.
Without wishing once again to traverse the entirety of her evidence, I would point to the answers Ms Menkens gave in cross‑examination to the very substantial expenditure she undertook when Mr Stephens’ American Express card came into her custody in January 2008. I have no doubt she was well aware that this credit card was not hers properly to use. The parties had finally separated by this time. The fact that she spent $1,800.00 effectively almost instantly before the credit card was cancelled and was quite unprepared to acknowledge that this might be extravagant speaks for itself.
Similarly, her failure to reveal increases in Centrelink benefits during the currency of these proceedings stands strongly against her.
The father likewise cannot wholly escape criticism. He presented to me as being an unusually ingenuous man notwithstanding the fact that he has been married twice and is a successful businessman in his mid to late 30s.
A number of the father's answers were less than fully responsive. Once again without traversing the entirety of his evidence, his evidence about the bar waitress he met in Hong Kong was, in my view, manifestly self‑serving and inadequate.
It is clear that in the early part of 2008 the father went to Hong Kong and met a young Filipina lady at a bar. He sought to suggest that this young woman, with whom he formed a passionate infatuation, was merely a waitress, notwithstanding that she was plainly in an indentured employment. The emails passing between the father and this woman (obtained by theft by the mother, yet another aspect of her conduct that I found unattractive), show that he was well aware that she was working in a non‑salubrious area. On Sunday, 4 May 2008 he emailed the woman, saying:
“If you think it would be better to apply for a visa from the Philippines then I think that might be best, maybe put your address there on the forms, it might look better than Wan Chai.”
On 10 July 2008 the woman in question emailed the father, saying:
“To tell you frankly, I need a big amount of money to pay back [S].”
Those remarks are not, in my view, such as to suggest that this lady in Hong Kong was merely working as a waitress.
This issue is not in the ultimate of any great moment but it was an area of credit in which the father fared extremely badly.
The reason it is not a major matter other than as to credit is because it is clear that Mr Stephens has woken up to the reality of the situation and now sees what is patent from the email correspondence, namely that the Filipina with whom he formed this brief infatuated relationship is after him only for his money. He confirmed that in evidence. I have no doubt she will play no further part in his life.
[X] has been in the habit of going to creche on Fridays, it would appear, from before the parties separated. She is also from time to time looked after by a friend of Ms Menkens called [J].
Much of the debate before me went to whether or not [X] should spend Fridays of each week with her paternal grandmother. The evidence is clear that on that day, more often than not, a number of [X]'s young cousins also attend.
The father gave evidence, which I accept, that he will endeavour to be present as much as he can on Fridays if orders are made for [X] to be with him/the paternal grandmother on that day. In light of the father's work commitments, however, the reality is more likely than otherwise to be that [X] would spend that time primarily with her paternal grandmother and cousins.
The Friday issue was one aspect of the proceeding. The other question was how much time [X] should spend otherwise with her father. The report of Ms Dockeary was not decisive one way or the other and nor was her evidence as to what the outcome should be.
Putting the matter in the round, the mother says that for [X] to be with her father from Friday to Monday is just too long at this stage and she therefore proposed [X] spend from Saturday till Monday with her father in one week and one midweek day, which the parties ultimately agreed should be Tuesday, with her father.
The father, by way of contrast, suggested that the child be with him from Friday morning through till Monday morning in order for her to spend Friday effectively with her grandmother and/or with himself, when available.
As I say, the report of Ms Dockeary was not decisive one way or the other. In her written report Ms Dockeary suggested an incremental increase from two, then three and possibly four nights, plus one other overnight in the fortnight with the father. She suggested that from August‑September, when [X] was three years old, it should be from Friday 12 noon till Sunday and possibly also the alternate Friday for the day with the paternal family and one night in the alternate week.
In cross‑examination by counsel for the father, she suggested that a block from Friday till Sunday and one night in the off week might be a suitable outcome.
In my opinion, [X]'s best interests will be met by her spending one night in one week (presumably Tuesday) and by spending from Friday till Sunday with her father for the next six months and thereafter from Friday till Monday.
As Ms Dockeary rightly observed, [X] is at an age where she is developing very significantly, and this introductory period will, in my view, give an appropriate regime to enable [X] to get over the difficulties of separation which the mother asserts.
While it is clear that [X] will lose her time at creche on Fridays, this can, after all, be replaced on another day during the week. There may be benefits to the mother if this is done in the event that she obtains some form of employment.
By way of contrast, it is clear that [X] will spend time with her paternal grandmother and cousins on a Friday, together possibly with her father. All the evidence in the case suggests that this is likely to be of benefit to her, notwithstanding the mother's hostility to the paternal grandmother.
These conclusions sit very comfortably, in my view, with the matters required to be considered by s.60CC of the Family Law Act 1975 (“the Act”).
It should be noted that there is no issue in this proceeding as to joint parental responsibility, and there will be an order for that.
Turning to s.60CC(2), it is clear that the child will benefit from having a meaningful relationship with both of her parents. Both sides gave evidence to this effect.
Furthermore, despite the appalling nature of the tape‑recording in December 2007, I do not think that the evidence goes so far as to suggest that the child needs to be protected from physical or psychological harm or from exposure to abuse, neglect or family violence. The December 2007 incident was, as I find, an essentially isolated incident at a time when the mother's health was not perhaps wholly established. There is no suggestion there has been any repeat in any event.
Turning to s.60CC(3):
a)[X] has not expressed any views but clearly has a good relationship with both parents.
b)[X] has a good relationship with each of her parents and the orders that I am proposing to make are likely to foment a good relationship with her extended family on her father's side.
c)Both parents have such negative views about one another that one might doubt the extent to which they will facilitate and encourage the relationship between the child and the other parent.
d)I do not think that the amount of separation which I am going to order between [X] and her mother is such as to make it inappropriate.
e)There is no practical difficulty or expense of [X] spending time with each of her parents.
f)Both parents and the paternal grandmother plainly have a capacity to provide for [X]'s needs.
g)This subparagraph adds nothing in the circumstances.
h)Not relevant.
i)This matter has already been dealt with.
j)I do not think that there has been family violence with the exception of the incident in December 2007 which might be said to fall within the extended definition in the Act. Also, as I have already said, I do not regard this as being a continuing concern.
k)Is not relevant.
l)Further proceedings are already foreshadowed in any event and cannot be avoided.
m)There are no other relevant facts to this aspect of the matter.
Property Issues
The size of the pool
The matrimonial home has been valued independently at $700,000.00 and is encumbered by a mortgage of approximately $470,000.00 and is therefore of a net worth of $230,000.00.
The mother's artwork is worth, as best one is able to say, $20,000.00. No expert evidence has been called by either party. The father suggests that the mother's art work is worth $25,000.00 but I propose, in the absence of any expert evidence, to accept the evidence of the mother. She is the person who owns the artwork and she is, it would appear, better educated and therefore, at least arguably, in a position better to evaluate the same than her electrician husband.
The father's horses turn out not to be individual pieces of flesh but rather represent a 10 per cent share in various horses owned by the father. Once again, his evidence in this regard seemed to me to be compelling. Although in his financial statement he swore that the horses were worth $7,000.00, I think that the concession in his outline of case document is the better estimate and I will assess those as $14,000.00.
The father has, putting the matter in the round, about $58,500.00 superannuation and the mother has $21,000.00.
At the time of separation the mother had a credit card debt of about $6,000.00 arising out of IVF treatment which she has been able to reduce to about $1,200.00.
As I have earlier stated, the father already possessed household furniture. It is put that this is worth $15,000.00 but I think that is a gross exaggeration.
The father's business, [G] Pty Ltd, has been valued by an independently‑engaged single expert accountant at $205,000.00 as at 24 July 2008.
It appears that in addition to credit card debts generally, the mother has a tax debt of some $9,916.00.
Contribution
This was another fertile battleground, most particularly in relation to the father's business.
I note that it is common cause that at the time of commencement of cohabitation, the father already had his business and the mother was effectively asset‑free. It appears that the father's business had commenced in the late 1990s. It was incorporated in July 2003.
Initially, the business was conducted by the father and Mr G. By 1999 there were two significant clients, being [L] and [C].
It is common cause that Mr G left the business in or about October 2004 and received a $30,000.00 payment at that time.
There was substantial debate before me as to what the true value of the business was at that time. Much was made of what I should or should not find as to the value of the goodwill of the business in this regard. In the ultimate, I do not think it matters.
Notwithstanding the independent report of Mr Lipson, it seems to me to be common cause that by 2004 the business was well‑established, although it had by no means grown as much as it now has. At that time [L] and [C] represented the bulk of the business' work, as they still continue to do.
What Ms Menkens said in this regard was that she had contributed both by providing all the income until she ceased her own work (the inference being that Mr Stephens' business had not paid any money during that time) and that she had contributed in a number of other ways.
I find that Ms Menkens' input into the father's business was minimal. Her accounts to the effect that she discussed the business with
Mr Stephens every evening go no farther, in my view, than the ordinary discussions that obtain between couples as to how their days have been.
Likewise, such assistance as the mother may have given in relation to the redesign of some uniforms and the logo of the business was insignificant. The father's evidence about these aspects of the case was given with conviction, and I accept it.
Similarly, her suggestions about the retention of an employee who might otherwise have been lost were, in my view, exaggerated and I prefer the father's evidence in this regard.
It should be noted that these are all of course findings largely related to demeanour but it should also be noted that it is only to be expected as a matter of probability that Mr Stephens would know more about the operation of his own business than Ms Menkens, who at best was only a tangential player.
I accept that Ms Menkens spent a day interviewing apprentices and made a recommendation arising out of that but in the course of a relationship that lasted for some years, this is scarcely a significant contribution.
It seems clear from the report of Mr Lipson, taken in conjunction with the father's evidence that the business has grown substantially between the commencement of cohabitation and now. I find that that is essentially, as counsel for Mr Stephens submitted, because the work conducted by [L] and [C] has itself expanded dramatically.
Thus, while the business is clearly an asset that falls to be considered within the affairs of the parties as a whole, I reject roundly the assertion made by Ms Menkens that she had any significant role whatever to play in its expansion.
Likewise, I accept Mr Stephens' evidence that he always drew his salary. This evidence was likewise given with conviction and again I accept it. Ms Menkens' insistence that she alone provided for the financial needs of the parties till she ceased work was part of the generally exaggerated way in which she sought to promote her contribution to the financial issues and consistent with her unsatisfactory evidence as a whole.
So far as the role of homemaker and mother is concerned, I accept entirely Ms Menkens' evidence that she was clearly the dominant contributor in this regard. The father's evidence, most particularly his endeavours in the witness box to promote himself as the primary or at least a major child carer, is inconsistent with the dynamic expansion of his business and his earlier affidavits to the effect that he worked very hard throughout the entirety of the marriage. Once again, his exaggeration in this regard does him no credit either.
Mr Stephens characterised this as in effect sloth on the mother's part and was otherwise critical of her endeavours to obtain employment.
I reject those criticisms in their entirety. As the mother of a very young child faced with the sort of emotional and (happily, it would appear now past) mental health issues, this criticism is as uncharitable as it is unattractive.
He pointed to the substantial payments he had made since separation in respect of the mortgage and other expenses.
I accept that both parties were each able to contribute $100,000.00 towards the purchase of the former matrimonial home. Mr Stephens' evidence that he was able to raise his $100,000.00 from the sale of shares was entirely believable. Whether the father of Ms Menkens loaned or gave his $100,000.00 to the parties is, in my view, neither here nor there; it is plainly a sum wholly attributable to the mother.
Given that the parties put in $100,000.00 each to the matrimonial home and that the equity in it is now only $230,000.00, it is entirely appropriate to regard the parties' contributions to the property as being equal.
While there is a certain amount of evidence as to the assistance that the father gave the mother at the commencement of the relationship in paying out the loan of her car and assisting her with her credit cards, in my view these, while not irrelevant, can reasonably be said to have been largely subsumed in the warp and woof of the family's commingled lifestyle following cohabitation and during their marriage.
It should be noted that although as I find Ms Menkens made no material contribution (in the sense that it should be assessed in percentage terms) to the father's business, the support and consortium that she provided during the currency of the relationship means that, at least in a broad sense, the business should not be excluded wholly from the pool.
Since, however, as a matter of practical politics it is inevitable that the business can only be continued by Mr Stephens, it seems to me that the proper adjustment in this regard should be made in light of the s.75(2) factors.
Section 75(2) factors
Here the balance is strongly in favour of the mother; neither side suggested otherwise, although they suggested different percentage outcomes.
On any view, Ms Menkens will be the primary carer of [X] for years to come, and I suspect for many years at that.
Ms Menkens is not presently in employment. Although she has recently pursued a part‑time job, she has not obtained it. It will, on any view, be difficult for her to re‑enter a workforce from which she has been absent for some time, in the absence of any particularly well‑developed qualifications.
Clearly the mother's income stream is likely always to be lower than the father's. Even when in full‑time employment, her earnings were of the order of $55,000.00 per annum. The father earns substantially more than that, and his business is well‑established. His own evidence is that he has an excellent relationship with his two major and primary clients and there seems little doubt that their work will continue to be with him for the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, the father's income will, as I find, increase substantially following the sale or disposition of his interest in the former matrimonial home. He has in the past paid $1,050.00 per month towards the mortgage of the home. This has masqueraded as rent in the books of the company. However much might be attributed to the lock‑up garage in the former matrimonial home, I very much doubt the characterisation has been a proper one.
Likewise, the father will cease to pay the moneys that he presently pays towards the mortgage. He will be substantially better off once this case and the orders that flow from it are effected.
It is plain that there should be a relatively significant adjustment in the mother's favour as a result of the s.75(2) factors but it is not possible to assess this as a single figure in isolation, for reasons to which I shall come.
Spousal Maintenance
Ms Menkens seeks spousal maintenance in the sum of $300.00 per week for the next three years to enable her to effectively start to retrain and get back into the workforce.
Contrary to his submissions, the father will find following the sale of the matrimonial home that he has substantial additional funds at hand and, in my view, he should pay spousal maintenance in the sum of $250.00 for a period of some two years. This is a period and an amount eminently appropriate, given the mother’s circumstances and the resources of the parties.
Just and equitable
It will be seen that I have inserted spousal maintenance in between consideration of the s.75(2) factors and this final step in the methodology. This is an unusual case in which it is not possible completely to disaggregate the various competing and financial property issues. The matter is distorted by the fact that, on any view, the husband has to retain his business, which is a significant asset.
While, for the reasons I have already expressed, I do not think that the mother made any contribution to the development of the business such as to attract even a 1 per cent input, the fact is that this asset has grown considerably, on any view, during the currency of the relationship and that the mother, merely through her role as wife, made a contribution in that regard.
The only area in which any adjustment can meaningfully be made such as to do justice and equity between the parties is in the equity in the matrimonial home.
In my view, I should approach this case very much on an asset‑by‑asset basis. The appropriate outcome, in all the circumstances, is that the parties should each retain what they presently possess including their superannuation.
Additionally, the matrimonial home should either be sold or bought out. In terms of notional adjustment, in my view it is appropriate that there be a 70 per cent adjustment to the mother in respect of all assets other than the business. That does the best one can to offset the interrelating aspects of the case.
If one takes the assets with which one is dealing, one looks at the $230,000.00 for the house. Leaving aside the wife's tax debt, which should be quarantined, the other assets and liabilities seem to me to be roughly equal. The artwork when offset by her Visa card debt is almost exactly the worth of the racehorses.
Thus we are dealing with a total, rounded‑out, of $310,000.00 (i.e. the house and superannuation). I think that the wife should receive 70 per cent of that total, being a total of $217,000.00, constituted by $21,000.00 of superannuation and $196,000.00 in relation to the matrimonial home.
Accordingly, the wife will be able to purchase the husband's interest in the matrimonial home for the sum of $34,000.00.
These orders have the obvious benefit that, in addition to being fair and equitable, they give the mother a real chance to remain in the home where [X] is familiar and where she has lived all her life.
It gives the father the benefit of the continuing value of his business and the capacity to continue to earn what I find will be substantially greater amounts than the mother will ever be able to achieve.
This is a messy case, made the more difficult by the significant conflicts of evidence and credit issues that the parties have felt it proper to raise.
In my view, the outcome at which I have arrived is the proper disposition of the matter according to law and to the justice and merits of the case.
I will request the parties to bring in minutes to give effect to these reasons for judgment.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and nine (109) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Burchardt FM
Associate: Brooke Evans
Date: 31 October 2008
0
0
1