Morrison and Morrison
[2013] FamCA 1024
FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MORRISON & MORRISON | [2013] FamCA 1024 |
| FAMILY LAW – PROPERTY SETTLEMENT – Long marriage – Contributions deemed equal throughout marriage – Whether any adjustment post separation for contribution and/or section 75(2) factors – Significant superannuation assets – Splitting order. |
| Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) |
|
| APPLICANT: | Mr Morrison |
| RESPONDENT: | Ms Morrison |
| FILE NUMBER: | PAC | 4045 | of | 2012 |
| DATE DELIVERED: | 20 December 2013 |
| PLACE DELIVERED: | Parramatta |
| PLACE HEARD: | Parramatta |
| JUDGMENT OF: | Foster J |
| HEARING DATE: | 5 December 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: | Bainbridge Legal |
| COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Mr Schroder |
| SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: | Rafton Family Lawyers |
Orders
That within seven (7) days from the date of these Orders, the husband and wife do all things necessary and sign all necessary documents so as to authorise and direct the payment to the wife of the sum of $71,658 representing the balance of proceeds of sale of the former matrimonial home presently held on trust for the parties, and that in the event that the husband fails to do all things necessary and sign all necessary documents, this order shall be sufficient authority for the said trust funds to be paid out to the wife.
That a base amount of $144,624 is allocated as required by section 90MT(4) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) to Ms Morrison, the non-member spouse, out of Mr Morrison’s interest in the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme.
That, in accordance with section 90 MT(1)(a) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth):
(a)Ms Morrison, the non-member spouse, is entitled to be paid the amount calculated in accordance with Part 6 of the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth); and
(b)Mr Morrison’s entitlement to payments out of his interest in the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme and the entitlement of such other person to whom a splittable payment may be payable, is correspondingly reduced by force of this order.
That the trustee of the SAS Trustee Corporation Pooled Fund (“the fund”) shall do all such acts and things and sign all such documents as may be necessary to:
(a)Calculate in accordance with the requirements of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and the Family Law (Superannuation) Regulations 2001 (Cth) the entitlement created for Ms Morrison by operation of these Orders; and
(b)Pay the entitlement, whenever the trustee makes a splittable payment, out of Mr Morrison’s interest in the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme.
That these splitting Orders have effect from the operative time and the operative time for these Orders is four (4) business days after service of a sealed copy of these Orders on the trustee.
That these Orders bind the trustee of the State Authorities Superannuation Scheme.
That otherwise each of the husband and the wife shall be and hereby are declared to be the sole and absolute owners at law and equity of all items of furniture, furnishings, personalty, chattels, jewellery and monies (whether held in cash or in deposit with any bank, building society, credit union or other financial institution) presently in each party’s possession, custody or control, together with all contributions to or benefits or entitlements arising from membership of any fund of insurance or superannuation, subject to Orders made herein.
That all outstanding financial applications and cross-applications be dismissed.
IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment by this Court under the pseudonym Morrison & Morrison 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 PARRAMATTA |
FILE NUMBER: PAC 4045 of 2012
| Mr Morrison |
Applicant
And
| Ms Morrison |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The proceedings
These are proceedings for property settlement commenced by the Applicant husband by Initiating Application filed on 13 September 2012.
In his Amended Application filed on 27 November 2013 the husband sought, in summary, the following orders in relation to property:
a)that within 28 days the wife pay to the husband the sum of $75,717;
b)that any remaining proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home held in trust be distributed to the wife;
c)that within 28 days the wife cause to be collected by the husband’s nominee a framed sepia portrait of the father and the child of the marriage;
d)that otherwise each party be declared the sole owner in law and equity of all items of personalty, chattels and financial resources in their respective possession; and
e)That the wife pay the husband’s costs of these proceedings.
The wife sought orders as to property as set out in her Amended Response filed on 27 November 2013 that, in summary, provided that:
a)the net proceeds of sale of the matrimonial home be dispersed to the wife;
b)that a base amount equivalent to 50 per cent of the husband’s interest in the State Authorities Superannuation fund be split to the wife;
c)that 50 per cent of the husband’s interest in the Military Superannuation fund be split to the wife; and
d)that otherwise each party be declared the sole owner in law and equity of all items of personalty, chattels and financial resources in their respective possession.
Background
The wife is presently aged 48 and the husband aged 47.
The parties commenced cohabitation at the time of marriage in 1988. The parties, during cohabitation, separated under the one roof for a period from April 2004 until July 2007.
The party separated on a final basis in early December 2011, following a separation under the one roof in July of that year.
There is one child of the marriage, M, born in 2000. The child presently resides with the mother and spends no time with the father.
At cohabitation
At the commencement of cohabitation the wife had savings of about $10,000-$12,000, a Holden motor vehicle purchased by her for the sum of $10,000 and various items of personalty and effects.
The husband had some contents from his rented home unit and a Datsun motor vehicle at this time.
Following marriage, the parties for about 18 months moved into a friend’s home, where they resided for about a year rent free. Thereafter they moved to occupy rented premises until the purchase of the family home in 1994.
Employment
The wife at the time of marriage was in full-time employment with a local Council and the husband was employed on a casual basis at a sports facility.
In September 1988 the husband sustained injuries whilst participating in an army reserve exercise and was out of work for about 12 months. During this period he received periodic compensation payments of about $300 per week.
In mid 1989 the husband joined the New South Wales public service and commenced to training at a public service training facility in July 1990. He graduated in July 1991. During this period, his income was modest, as he was required to meet his own accommodation costs whilst residing at the facility.
In July 2000 the husband informed the wife that he had applied for an overseas deployment. He commenced training for this deployment in September 2000 and was deployed overseas in April 2001, returning in November 2001. During his deployment, the husband received a tax free benefit of about $55,000, with about $25,000 of this sum paid later to the credit of the parties’ mortgage and some funds applied to the purchase of a fridge and freezer for the wife’s parents in recognition of their assistance given to the wife during his absence.
Upon the husband’s return from his overseas deployment he recommenced work as a New South Wales public servant.
The wife continued her full-time employment with local Council until May in 1992, at which time she received a lump sum termination payment of about $12,000. During the early years of the marriage the wife worked several other part-time jobs to assist the party’s finances.
In May 1992 the wife obtained full-time employment with the New South Wales public service and remained in that employment until she obtained full-time employment in the travel industry in May 1994. On termination with the public service service the wife received a lump sum payment of $2,000 for unpaid annual leave and long service.
The wife continued in full-time employment in the travel industry until she commenced part-time employment in 2007 and that part-time employment has continued to the date of hearing. During cohabitation, the parties enjoyed significant travel as a consequence of the travel benefits available to the wife through her employment.
In the early years of cohabitation, and until 1991 when the husband commenced as a New South Wales public servant, the wife’s income was higher than that of the husband. Thereafter, the parties’ incomes were not significantly dissimilar.
The W property
In March 1994 the parties purchased the matrimonial home at Suburb W for the sum of $125,000. The purchase was substantially financed by a home loan from the St George Bank. At the time of purchase, the wife had accumulated savings available to her of about $31,000 and part of these funds were applied to the purchase of the property.
In July 2001, whilst the husband was deployed overseas, renovations and improvements were carried out to the property. Renovations were funded by way of a further mortgage borrowing arranged by the wife. During the course of renovations the wife engaged a builder and oversaw the project. She also undertook some aspects of the work, including landscaping to the front and rear yards, and was assisted by her brother, who undertook certain landscaping works at the property.
The husband also, subsequent to the purchase of the property, undertook various works in and around the property.
Following the parties separation, the W home was sold in August 2013 pursuant to interim Orders made on 27 March 2013. The property sold for the sum of $610,000 and after payment of agents commission, selling costs and discharge of mortgage of about $305,000, the parties each received the sum of $107,503, representing 37.5 per cent of the net proceeds of sale. The balance of the proceeds of sale in the sum of $71,658 remains held on trust for the parties.
The W property mortgage and credit card debts
Following separation the wife and the child of the marriage remained in occupation of the home at W.
On 23 August 2012 the husband ceased making any payments to the mortgage account. As a consequence of Orders made on 27 March 2013, the husband was required to make a contribution towards mortgage payments by payment of one half of the required instalments. No such payments were made by the husband until the property was sold in August 2013.
The wife made all payments in relation to the mortgage from 23 August 2012 until the property sale, and in addition, during the same period, paid Council and insurance payments and other property outgoings. Over the period until sale the wife made total payments of $11,255.
In 2010 the parties expended about $17,000 on the installation of a solar power system to the home. The cost was funded using the wife’s MasterCard, thus incurring significant interest at credit card rates.
In March 2012 the wife opened a joint credit card account, being a St George Vertigo MasterCard. The parties transferred to this card the sum of $10,000 that represented part of the purchase price of a solar system installed at the home prior to separation. The transfer of portion of the debt facilitated a minimal interest rate of 0.99 per cent on that sum for the first 12 months.
The husband ceased making repayments to this credit card in July 2012 and, thereafter, the wife has made repayments of $4,706 to the date of trial. The outstanding balance on the card is $5,646.
The husband’s mortgage withdrawal
Until April 2012 the husband made fortnightly mortgage payments of $710 and the wife made payments fortnightly of $520. The reason for the disparity was that the mortgage had been the earlier extended to finance the purchase of a motor vehicle for the husband and he undertook to pay the additional payments incurred.
In April 2012 the husband reduced his mortgage repayments to about $510 per fortnight. On 24 August 2012 the husband ceased making payments to the mortgage and, without notice to the wife, made arrangements with the mortgagee for payments to be debited against the redraw facility available at that time.
As at late August 2012 the mortgage balance was about $288,000. Notwithstanding the wife’s continuing payments as a consequence of the husband ceasing to make payments on the mortgage, the mortgage balance increased to $305,000 as at the date of settlement of the sale of the home.
The wife complains that in August 2011 the husband withdrew by way of redraw the sum of $10,000 from the joint mortgage account without her knowledge or consent. It is common ground that at that time the wife had been an inpatient at a Hospital and was discharged on 19 August 2011 and thereafter readmitted in September 2011.
Funds withdrawn from the mortgage by the husband were substantially applied in payment of the wife’s hospital bills and the purchase of various items for the home that have been retained by the wife on separation.
Parenting and Homemaker
As referred to above, the husband undertook an overseas deployment shortly after the birth of the child of the marriage. During the period following the child’s birth, until November 2001 on his return from deployment, the wife was the primary homemaker and caregiver for the child having taken maternity leave until February 2001.
Following her return to work the wife was assisted significantly by her parents who lived nearby, in the care of the child.
The husband, in his employment as a New South Wales public servant, has worked shift work since obtaining that employment, particularly after the birth of the child.
The husband’s mother assisted the parties with child care from time to time.
It is common ground between the parties that they managed parenting arrangements in relation to the child as best they could having regard to their respective shift work obligations and were assisted by both the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother. The wife conceded that this could be regarded as an equal contribution by each of them.
In 2003 the child was enrolled at the local preschool that was within walking distance of the wife’s parent’s home. This facilitated the wife’s parents remaining of significant assistance to the wife in taking the child to and from preschool if the wife was at work. Subsequent to the child commencing school, the wife’s parents continued to assist significantly in relation to the child’s care, including overnight care, in the event that the wife was required to work at that time.
Following separation, the wife has had the sole care of the child of the marriage.
The wife’s health
Subsequent to the birth of the child the wife was diagnosed with postnatal depression and was on medication for about two years.
In 2006 the wife recommenced on antidepressant medication and commenced seeing a counsellor in relation to issues arising from the parties’ relationship.
On 30 June 2011 the wife overdosed on Stilnox tablets and, shortly thereafter, was admitted to a Hospital on 6 July 2011.
Following an incident between the parties on 19 August 2011 the wife was readmitted to hospital on 30 August 2011 and then transferred to the Hospital until she was discharged on 8 September 2011.
The wife returned to work in October 2011.
The wife says that since her physical separation from the husband her mental health has stabilised, but she continues to to receive help and assistance from the social worker at the Women’s Health Centre and is under the care of a specialist psychiatrist, Dr L, who she sees each three or four weeks. The wife also attends upon her treating psychologist, Ms H, each three or four weeks.
The wife’s future employment and present circumstances
The wife proposes that she will continue to work on a part-time basis. Her taxable income for the 2012 financial year was about $23,000. Following the sale of the home she has obtained rented accommodation for herself and the child and is paying $450 per week rent.
The child of the marriage is in full time attendance at C Catholic College and the wife pays the child’s school fees in the sum of $2,500 per annum.
The wife continues to receive assistance from her parents in caring for the child and, on occasions, the child stays with the wife’s parents or with friends. However, by reason of the wife’s parents’ financial circumstances they are unable to assist her financially.
The husband has been assessed to pay child support in relation to the child and has his present child support payments deducted from his salary. At present it is in the sum of $305.20 per week. The present assessment will continue until 30 November 2014.
The husband’s employment and present circumstances
The husband remains a New South Wales public servant but is currently suspended on full pay of about $108,000 per annum awaiting the outcome of criminal proceedings to be determined in 2014. In addition to his public service salary, the husband receives a tax-free Veteran’s Affairs payment of just over $100 per week.
Subsequent to separation, the husband had resided in rental accommodation until he commenced to reside with his present partner in September 2012.
The husband pays to his partner the sum of $830 per fortnight as his contribution to accommodation and household expenses. His partner owns the property they reside in jointly with her former husband and is in the process of finalising a property settlement with him, which will see her acquire her former husband’s interest in the property for $119,000.
The husband’s partner is studying and presently working on a part-time basis, earning an income of about $200 per week, in addition to some child support payments received from her husband.
Discussion
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) 247 CLR 108 and that decision was the subject of detailed consideration by the Full Court in Bevan & Bevan [2013] FamCAFC 116.
The Court should firstly identify the present assets, financial resources and liabilities of the parties.
The Court should then consider whether, having regard to the circumstances before it, whether it would be unjust and unfair not to make orders for alteration of the property interests of the parties having regard to the provisions of section 79(2) of the Act.
The Court can then proceed to consider the contributions by each of the parties as contemplated by section 79(4)(a) – (c) of the Act.
Having determined the contribution-based entitlements of the parties the Court can then consider the various factors set out in section 75(2) of the Act and whether any further adjustment to the parties’ contribution-based entitlements is appropriate.
The Court is then required to consider the justice and equity of the proposed orders and whether, in all the circumstances, the orders to be made are appropriate.
The property of the parties
The Court is firstly required as a starting point to 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.
At trial there was substantial agreement as to a majority of the assets and liabilities for consideration, but there was also discrete issues as to particular items, whether they should be included or excluded in the pool of assets for the purposes of adjustment between the parties.
The parties’ respective contentions at trial were provided to the Court in the form of a draft balance sheet, admitted into evidence as Exhibit A.
That ultimate balance sheet is set out below and represents the property, the liabilities and financial resources of the parties at the time of hearing, with the items ultimately in contention marked with an asterisk:
Assets:
Joint Balance of sale proceeds of home $71,658
Husband X savings account- …17 $ 1,985
Husband X savings account – …67 $ 133
Husband Subaru motor vehicle $11,300
Husband Household contents $ 1,000
Wife X shares $ 3,029
Wife AMP shares $ 3,589
Wife Mazda motor vehicle $ 8,100
Wife Household contents $ 1,000
Liabilities:
Joint St George Bank Vertigo MasterCard $ 5,646
Wife Go MasterCard $ 8,541*
Superannuation
Husband SAS superannuation fund defined benefit $278,263
Husband SAS non-contributory superannuation fund $ 53,250
Husband Military Super $ 14,110
Wife X superannuation $195,716
Wife SAS superannuation $ 54,528
The adjusted pool
Several issues arose in relation to the appropriate asset pool for division. These are dealt with below:
a)The wife’s Go MasterCard: It was contended on behalf of the wife that the present balance of her MasterCard in the sum of $8,541 should be included in the pool as an appropriate liability, the funds being expended on her reasonable living expenses since separation by reason of the disparity in financial circumstances of the parties. The debt represents the wife’s present obligation to repay and as such it will be included in the pool at $8,541.
b)Agreed addbacks: During submissions the parties agreed that various sums should be notionally added back to the pool of assets for division. These are as follows:
Husband Sale proceeds CBA shares $ 16,217
Husband Sale proceeds of firearms $ 6,200
Husband preliminary sale proceeds distribution $107,503
Wife preliminary sale proceeds distribution $107,503
Accordingly, the adjusted pool for division is as follows:
Assets:
Joint Balance of sale proceeds of home $ 71,658
Husband X savings account- …17 $ 1,985
Husband X savings account – …67 $ 133
Husband Subaru motor vehicle $ 11,300
Husband Household contents $ 1,000
Husband Sale proceeds CBA shares $ 16,217
Husband Sale proceeds of firearms $ 6,200
Husband Preliminary sale proceeds distribution $107,503
Wife Preliminary sale proceeds distribution $107,503
Wife X shares $ 3,029
Wife AMP shares $ 3,589
Wife Mazda motor vehicle $ 8,100
Wife Household contents $ 1,000
$339,217
Liabilities:
Joint St George Bank vertigo MasterCard $ 5,646
Wife Go MasterCard $ 8,541
$ 14,187
Superannuation
Husband SAS superannuation fund defined benefit $278,263
Husband SAS non-contributory superannuation fund $ 53,250
Husband Military Super $ 14,110
Wife X superannuation $195,716
Wife SAS superannuation $ 54,528
$595,867
The overall pool for division thus has a value of $920,897.
Unjust or unfair not to make orders
Firstly, the Court should determine whether it is just and equitable to make a property settlement order. The Court needs to conclude that it would be unjust or unfair to leave present 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 adjustment orders but are unable to agree as to same.
In this matter over the period of the parties’ relationship, which was for nearly 23 years until physical separation, the parties accumulated property and financial resources. The strong inference being that such assets were accumulated for the common purpose of providing for their life into the future and in all probability ultimately for their child.
As a consequence of the commencement of proceedings as to property settlement in respect of which both parties seek disparate property adjustment orders identified earlier in these reasons, the Court is satisfied that it is just and equitable to make orders as to property adjustment under s 79 of the Act.
Contributions
The Court is next required to evaluate and assess contributions, not only in the context of their asserted monetary value, but also in the context of indirect contributions of a non-financial nature, to the accumulation and preservation of assets and the parties’ roles in so far as homemaker and parenting.
In Kessey & Kessey(1994) FLC 92-495 at 81,151 the Full Court made it clear that ultimately all that is necessary is to evaluate the weight that should be given to each party’s contributions relative to the contributions of the other party:
... In many – indeed probably in most – property settlement cases the Court has to evaluate and assess contributions to property in the absence of precise valuations of the contributions in question. Indeed, where the contributions to property are indirect or non-financial, precise valuation is impossible, and even where the contributions are direct or financial so that a valuation might be provided, other factors (not capable of precise mathematical statement) may well have eroded the initial value of such contributions. In a case such as the present, it is not necessary to arrive at precise mathematical valuations of the parties’ contributions - all that is necessary is to evaluate the weight that should be given to each party’s contributions relative to the contributions of the other party.
In assessing contributions the Full Court in Harris & Harris (1991) FLC 92-254 observed at 78,705:
The task of the court in proceedings under section 79 is not akin to an accounting exercise. To borrow a phrase used by McLelland J in Davey v Lee (1990) DFC 95-084; (1990) 13 Fam LR 688 at 689 in relation to section 20 of the De Facto Relationships Act 1984 (NSW) ''the Court is required to make a holistic value judgment in the exercise of a discretionary power of a very general kind”.
Counsel for the husband contended that contributions to the date of the parties’ separation should favour the husband as to 55 per cent and as to the wife 45 per cent by reason of the husband’s greater income contribution and there being no significant disparity between the initial contributions between the parties. However, such a submission ignores the way in which the parties chose to order their lives within their marriage. Notwithstanding there being a child in the relationship, the wife commenced part-time employment in respect to which the husband makes no complaint.
It was further contended by counsel for the husband that there should be no adjustment to the contribution finding asserted for at separation for the period post separation to date of trial. The wife, it is submitted, remained in occupation of the matrimonial home to the husband’s exclusion and subsequent to cessation of payment of mortgage payments by him he commenced to pay child support as assessed.
It was submitted by counsel for the wife that, overall, it is difficult to distinguish between the contributions of each of the parties to the date of separation and such contributions should be regarded as equal. However, it is further submitted by counsel for the wife that in the period from separation to trial contributions should favour the wife overall as to 55 per cent to her and 45 per cent to the husband by reason of her significant parenting contributions post-separation in the absence of the husband having time with the child, the use of funds by the husband from the redraw facility and the wife’s continuing payments in relation to the mortgage and the parties’ joint credit card debts post-separation. The Court is satisfied, for the reasons set out above, that nothing turns upon the issue of the mortgage redraw. However, as a result of the husband ceasing mortgage payments, the mortgage balance, notwithstanding the wife continuing her contributions increased by some $15,000 to date of settlement of the home.
Overall the Court finds that contributions should favour the wife as to 52.5 per cent to the husbands 47.5 per cent. This creates a disparity between the parties of about $46,000 and the Court is satisfied that this is an appropriate recognition of the wife’s post-separation contributions in circumstances where she remained in occupation of the matrimonial home.
Section 75(2) considerations
The Court has had regard to all of the factors set out in this section of the Act.
It is submitted by counsel for the husband that a consideration of the section 75(2) factors would lead to there being no adjustment to the Court’s finding as to the parties contribution-based entitlement. This submission is made notwithstanding the significant income disparity between the parties, the wife’s continuing care of the child in circumstances where the husband’s future time with the child is most uncertain and the wife’s underlying health issues referred to above. This submission is rejected.
Counsel for the wife submits that there should be an adjustment in favour of the wife having regard to the section 75(2) factors of 10 per cent over and above the parties’ contribution-based entitlements. He points particularly to the significant income disparity between the parties and the wife’s ongoing care of the child in the absence of the husband having any involvement with the child.
The factors highlighted by counsel for the wife call for an adjustment in favour of the wife of 10 per cent.
The Court is conscious of the fact that the husband’s future circumstances are uncertain in that he is presently suspended whilst on full pay in his role as a New South Wales public servant pending the outcome of criminal proceedings some time in 2014. As a consequence of those criminal proceedings he could see himself discharged from the public service if convicted. It is conceded that, if convicted, there is a real prospect that he may serve a period of imprisonment.
However, whilst the Court has taken into account the present income disparity, in the event that the husband’s employment is terminated as a consequence of a conviction then clearly his circumstances will change, but as a consequence thereof so will those of the wife in that she would have no reasonable expectation of receiving any child support and the husband would have into the foreseeable future little or no involvement in the parenting of the child of the marriage.
Both parties at trial acknowledged the existence is of this uncertainty, but notwithstanding this, require the Court to make a determination on the circumstances as they presently exist.
Appropriate Orders
The orders proposed by the Court will have no impact on the parties’ respective earning capacity.
The Court has considered the husband’s present child support obligations above.
Overall the wife is entitled to 62.5 per cent of the asset pool for adjustment, that being the sum of $575,560.
The wife presently has in her possession or entitlement the following:
Wife Preliminary sale proceeds distribution $107,503
Wife X shares $ 3,029
Wife AMP shares $ 3,589
Wife Mazda motor vehicle $ 8,100
Wife contents $ 1,000
$123,221
Liabilities:
Joint St George Bank Vertigo MasterCard $ 5,646
Wife Go MasterCard $ 8,541
$ 14,187
Superannuation:
Wife X superannuation $195,716
Wife SAS superannuation $ 54,528
$250,244
These total $359,278. A further adjustment in favour of the wife of $216,282 is called for. Should the wife receive the balance of the proceeds of sale in the sum of $71,658 currently held on trust for the parties, that will leave a final adjustment of $144,624 to be made.
The only available resource from which this adjustment can be made is the husband’s SAS superannuation fund defined benefit. The Court will therefore make a splitting order from this fund in favour of the wife.
The Court is satisfied that orders implementing the above are both just and equitable and appropriate.
The Court will make orders accordingly.
I certify that the preceding ninety-five (95) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Foster delivered on 20 December 2013.
Legal Associate:
Date: 20 December 2013
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Family Law
-
Property Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Damages
-
Duty of Care
-
Injunction
-
Jurisdiction
0
2
0