Moretto & Cosola (No 2)
Case
•
[2022] FedCFamC1F 924
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Moretto & Cosola (No 2) [2022] FedCFamC1F 924
[2022] FedCFamC1F 924
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Moretto & Cosola (No 2), the applicant, Mr Moretto, sought a declaration that there should be no adjustment to the parties’ respective legal and equitable interests in their property. The respondent, Ms Cosola, contested this and sought an adjustment of the parties’ property interests. The trial judge was tasked with determining the appropriate division of property between the parties following the breakdown of their de facto relationship. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge should adjust the parties' legal and equitable interests in their property, given the nature of their relationship and the conduct of the parties during that time.
The trial judge considered the evidence provided by both parties and their witnesses, finding that the parties did not intermingle their financial affairs and held their real property independently. The judge noted that there was no joint personal bank account and that the parties dealt with their assets individually. The judge accepted that the underlying assumption of the relationship was that each party was free to deal with their assets as they chose. Given this, the judge determined that there was no principled basis for adjusting the parties' property interests, as the relationship did not exhibit the characteristics that would warrant such an order. The judge concluded that the relationship did not warrant an adjustment of property interests based on the conduct and understanding of the parties during the relationship.
The court ultimately dismissed Ms Cosola's claim for an adjustment of property interests and granted the declaration sought by Mr Moretto. The trial judge found that the unstated assumptions of the relationship, as evidenced by the parties' conduct, did not support an adjustment of property interests following the relationship's breakdown. The final orders of the court reflected this decision, declaring that there should be no adjustment to the parties’ respective legal and equitable interests in their property.
The trial judge considered the evidence provided by both parties and their witnesses, finding that the parties did not intermingle their financial affairs and held their real property independently. The judge noted that there was no joint personal bank account and that the parties dealt with their assets individually. The judge accepted that the underlying assumption of the relationship was that each party was free to deal with their assets as they chose. Given this, the judge determined that there was no principled basis for adjusting the parties' property interests, as the relationship did not exhibit the characteristics that would warrant such an order. The judge concluded that the relationship did not warrant an adjustment of property interests based on the conduct and understanding of the parties during the relationship.
The court ultimately dismissed Ms Cosola's claim for an adjustment of property interests and granted the declaration sought by Mr Moretto. The trial judge found that the unstated assumptions of the relationship, as evidenced by the parties' conduct, did not support an adjustment of property interests following the relationship's breakdown. The final orders of the court reflected this decision, declaring that there should be no adjustment to the parties’ respective legal and equitable interests in their property.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
Legal Concepts
-
De facto Relationships
-
Property Settlement
-
Retirement
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Reynard & Emerson (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2F 573
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Cosola & Moretto
[2023] FedCFamC1A 61
Moretto & Cosola (No 3)
[2023] FedCFamC1F 360
Reynard & Emerson (No 2)
[2025] FedCFamC2F 573
Cases Cited
5
Statutory Material Cited
0
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Singer v Berghouse
[1994] HCA 40
Bosanac v Commissioner of Taxation
[2022] HCA 34